The Editors have no doubt
All three major daily editorials today are on Peters, and none of them believe him.
The NZ Herald::
The silly thing throughout has been that had Mr Peters told the truth at the outset, no harm would have been done. Nobody could have really believed his career survived on his small party’s membership fees. Had he admitted, when asked, that he had needed help with a legal bill, who could have blamed him?
But Mr Peters’ instinct was never to be candid. He seemed to have a congenital aversion to the straight answer. Invariably he treated questions from the press as a personal affront, to be met with verbal jousts, semantic denials and obfuscation. His “testimony” on Wednesday night confirmed one other peculiarity about this former lawyer – he is remarkably inarticulate. Swallowing words, blurring the point and scrambling sense. This, wilfully or involuntarily, contributes to the fog of evasion. His appearance failed to rebut a single piece of Mr Glenn’s evidence.
Telling the truth would have been much wiser in hindsight for Peters.
Enough of him. New Zealanders should consider today what a debt we owe Owen Glenn. He cared enough for his good name in this country to come here and clear it. In doing so he will surely rid us of a politician who misused his considerable talent and charm to mislead the public on important policies, sow fear and suspicion of change and survive on a populism that has turned out to be not only destructive but dishonest.
Destructive and dishonest. Not a bad summary.
The Dominion Post has had enough of what it calls this nonsense:
Mr Henry insists that Mr Peters was not the “client” referred to in the e-mail and, therefore, Mr Peters should be taken at his word when he says he did not ask Mr Glenn for money.
Before Mr Glenn produced his phone records, that was an improbable, but conceivable, explanation of events.
It is no longer, unless Mr Henry expects the committee to believe that while talking to Mr Peters, Mr Glenn was also conducting another conversation with someone else who just happened to be making representations on Mr Peters’ behalf without the MP’s knowledge.
Yes, he was on two phone calls at the same time. Well this is what Helen Clark seems to believe.
For too long, he has trifled with the truth and danced on the heads of legal pins. By doing so, he would like his supporters to believe he has simply been refusing to dance to the tune of petty bureaucrats and the news media.
But what he has, in fact, been doing is showing contempt for Parliament, the law and the public. Remember, it was an audience member who asked Mr Peters at a Grey Power meeting in July to explain why NZ First had not declared money received from the Spencer Trust, a shadowy legal entity administered by his brother Wayne.
Mr Peters replied that: “Everything that [NZ First] was required to do within the law has been done,” has now been shown, by the party’s own admission that it broke electoral law, to be false.
Indeed. And there may well be others laws broken with their false returns.
And the Press calls the PM an obfuscator and ditherer:
The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, continues to obfuscate and dither over whether to sack the suspended Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, says The Press in an editorial.
Again the key issue is not whether she will sack him. It is whether she will rule him out post-election.
Now, despite the compelling evidence presented by Glenn which Peters abysmally failed to rebut, Clark continues to suggest there is enough there to cause her to have doubts. This is nonsense. Clark is failing to act not because there is any real doubt any more, but out of political calculation, because she may need Peters in future. In doing so, she badly compromises her own reputation for political integrity.
A less charitable person might say it confirms her own political integrity reputation!
Having worked hard before his appearance to confuse the issue by suggesting that Glenn might somehow have misremembered events or got muddled, Labour continues, by pointing to minor discrepancies or errors, to try to generate a smokescreen around his evidence and cast doubt on it. But unless there is some dramatic new evidence that has not yet been revealed, no honest, objective observer who saw and heard Glenn this week, and watched Peters’ reply, can any longer doubt the matter.
It is ironic that Helen Clark whines and whines that National should not be on the Privileges Committee. Because if any group of MPs could be seen to be acting as advocates for one side, it is the Labour MPs who seem to be unpaid Counsels for Winston Peters.
The New Zealand First party itself has shown, by the evidence that has now emerged of inaccurate election donation returns not just once but in election after election, that it too apparently believes it does not have to play by the same rules as everyone else. This has happened so often that it is hard escape the belief that it is a deliberate tactic designed, for electoral advantage, to bamboozle the party’s supporters about the source of its income.
The rhetoric of parts of Peters’ privileges committee evidence, suggesting a malign conspiracy against him, was clearly a warm-up for what is likely to be the theme of his election campaign. It must be hoped that voters have the sense to see through it and ensure that we have had the last of him in government and of New Zealand First in Parliament.
That would indeed be a good thing.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Well we’re clearly now in the realm of farce with Peters. Hes a lying thieving bastard and we all know it.
Time to move on.
Time to turn the heat on Helen Clark and examine exactly what role she played in this entire saga. We already know she knew about it from the start but we’re suposed to beileve that Mike Williams approved the loan without mentioning it to Helen who has been keeping him on a short leash since his high pitched 9 lies of Christmas rendition?
I think not baby puppy.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:34 am
It is a well known maxim that when one has dug oneself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Well known that is, save for Winston and Helen
September 12th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I think these editorials are all so much puffery. They skip over issues that to me are much more important, namely what the Prime minister of New Zealand has been up to. She has to have mislead parliament. Where’s the outrage over this?
Secondly, what was the deal?? Glenn was a Labour party supporter, and he and Helen Klark and Mike Williams decided to give $100,000 to Winston Peters. Surely the most glaringly obvious question that needs to be asked is why? This money could have gone to Labour, who no doubt sorely needed it. Instead it went to NZ First.
Why would one party give such a huge sum to another party?
There has to some kind of nefarious goings on here that are as yet undiscovered. At the very least, it could be construed that Peter’s was paid the $100,000 by Glenn just so The Labour party could be assured of his continued government support. If so, this is a blatant example of political blackmail, gangsterism and cronyism that I find hard to believe cannot be in breach of some law.
I still maintain that Klark, Glenn, Peters and Mike Williams should be the subject of much more intense investigation, by the SFO or some other organ of the justice system. They have perverted the course of democracy. In a country that is so heavily regulated you can’t even talk on your cellphone while driving, these people can get away with that???
September 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“The silly thing throughout has been that had Mr Peters told the truth at the outset, no harm would have been done. ”
And therein lies the rub. This is less about what Peters did or did not legally do (although the further investigations have given rise to some serious smells) but the fact that Peters is a liar and a hypocrite. Although seemingly still good enough to hold a ministerial warrant in a Labour government.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Redbaiter,
You comments IMHO hit the nail on the head, there is a lot more to this. One fact in the NZ Herald story about Paul Moroney today is that he told his sister the Labour MP Sue Moroney parts of this story 3 months ago. Helen “Pontius Pilate’ Clark and Mike ‘the unmitigated falsifier of veracity’ Williams knew all along. Who else knew? It’s hard to imagine other senior ministers not knowing anything about this matter months ago.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:03 am
As Lindsay says, the Herald has more from Maroney which destroys Peters defence about the Karaka lunch completely and confirms Labour knew all this at least three months ago when Maroney told his sister.
Out with all the liars.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Am I missing something here?
Surely Winston’s lawyer cannot be inferring that when he emailed Owen Glenn about his “client” he was talking about someone other than Winston Peters?
because, if Owen Glenn was talking to someone else HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND WOULD HAVE SAID SO!!!
This surely isn’t the smoking gun defence Winston is putting up – please tell me that we are not expected to believe this?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I repeat again … all will be revealed come Monday after Sunday’s polls when the results are analysed relative to the latest Roy Morgan Poll …
Labour up = Winston stays
Labour down = Winston goes
It’s as simple and self-serving as that folks.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:13 am
despite all this..dpf..
the reality still stands..
..that barring peters facing charges from the s.f.o. investigation..
..that he will be back after the election..
..probably sitting next to national..
..on the opposition benches..
..eh..?
..unless helen ‘needs’ him..
..in which case you nattys will be able to look straight ahead..and see him..
..eh..?
(it’s all a bit ‘chilling’..eh dpf..?
..that increasing probability..)
and hey..in case you haven’t noticed..
..a huge amount of people out here..even if they don’t like peters..
..are convinced he is the victim of a concerted conspiracy from/by his enemies..
..and that national have been front and centre in that conspiracy..
..if you doubt my words..go and watch that latest ‘backbenchers’..and see the (involuntary/spontaneous) support for that persecution idea..
..from that audience..
..and i doubt they were all nz first voters/supporters..
..eh..?
..i tell ya..!..the more time goes by/events unfold..
..the more convinced i am that keys’ scheming against/rush to judgment/ruling peters out..
..will go into the textbooks as one of the biggest political boo-boos..ever..
..and you have handed peters his election campaign strategy/eventual re-election..
..on a plate..
..eh..?
..fuck..!..that must hurt..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 9:14 am
First apologies for the length of this quote, it’s Barry Soper’s Political Report on the Newstalkzb website.
It’s worth reading for the witty and rather caustic tone!
September 12th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“there is a lot more to this.”
Yep, just has to be. The Herald makes the point that Peters could have told the truth at the outset. So why didn’t he? Plainly because there is something else going on. It would not surprise me to learn that the story we are hearing, (that the payment was made to help Winston with his legal expenses) is completely false.
Why would Helen Klark, Mike Williams or Owen Glenn give a damn about Winston’s legal fees??
There’s still the strange reluctance of Helen Klark to speak frankly on this issue and her stubborn resistance to firing Winston. What’s behind all of that?? Something extremely deep and murky has been percolating here. I’d like to see NZ’s media asking a lot more questions than they have so far.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Clark knew about the donation definitely in Feb and possibly as far back as Dec 2005. She knew that Peters has been lying throughout the ‘No means No’ charade, and we can be certain that she knew he was repeatedly filing falsified returns.
But as Bill English said yesterday – Peters knows where the bodies are burried (code for he knows which live ones were repatriated under diplomatic cover)
I want more heat put on Clark. Please, please MSM: get the blowtorch down her Y-fronts.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The other ‘client’ is Mike Williams who was sitting opposite Mr Glenn while he talked to Winnie on the blower, at the same time Mr Williams called Mr Henry who emailed Mr Glenn. It is all really obvious and innocent………not.
I shouldn’t make up such fanciful stories, next it will be presented to the PC as evidence.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“[Glen] will surely rid us of a politician who misused his considerable talent and charm to mislead the public on important policies, sow fear and suspicion of change and survive on a populism that has turned out to be not only destructive but dishonest.”
Surely?
Listen to talkback. Winston Peters continues to have a following oblivious to fact. I admit to a deep, deep, desire to have some well earned schedenfruede on that man’s downfall, but it would not surprise me to see a 4th Labour-led Government propped up by the usual suspects.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am
My guess is that Clark is petrified if she gets rid of Peters once and for all either him (Peters) or someone else in the Poodles First Party will blurt out the real truth behind this slimy business and f**k Labour.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:23 am
If we are all satisfied that Winston has lied – then we have now a duty to ask ‘Why would he lie?’ and as importantly, ‘Why would Helen Clark support him in his lie?”
Helen Clark, Mike Williams and Winston Peters are all up to their necks in this shameful situation. Helen Clark has been privy to information which was damning to Labour’s credibility and hid it from parliament even after the privileges committee was ordered. Why? to vouchsafe the coalition which was effectively bought by Owen Glenn. Mike Williams, who, not so long ago offered his resignation to Helen Clark because he was caught in a lie, has come out of this sounding hollow, for questioning Glenn’s credibility as a witness. Winston Peter’s only line of defence thus far has been to flap and obscuficate, never once clearing the matter up ‘in five minutes’ as he once promised. He has been left looking disgraceful, like the those worst kinds of villain, who, having been convicted for a heinous crime,to whom now compensation must be paid, for his ‘hurt feelings’.
monkeywithtypewriter
September 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
What kind of lobotomized idiot believes that if Winston had “come clean” and told the truth that this would all have been ok, nothing to see here, move on?
Are you trying to convince me that there is no one out there who could have put two and two together and deduced that Winston’s support for this self serving “government” was paid for with more than baubles?
I watched both Winnie the Turd and the corrupt old dyke on the news last night and the pair of them were both blinking like fucking bats that had been dragged out into bright sunlight. Lying pieces of shit the pair of them. It is truly disgusting that they have the audacity to try and feed us their bullshit and even more disgusting that so many ignorant shit heads believe anything they say.
This country is fucked and the arrogance of the ignorant twats who believe it is anything more than a bumfuck backwater, a pimple on the earths arse, is astounding. 4 million ignorant sheep fuckers carry about as much clout on the world stage as I carry in parliament. The fear of so many stupid people who think that the country has assets worth raping and pillaging by overseas “gazillionaires” is mind boggling. Seriously, what do we actually have to offer that can’t be produced elsewhere at a lower cost?
Don’t get me wrong, I love(d) living here and it is a scenic, spacious environment. Kiwi nationalism, pride(???) and xenophobia are being exploited by corrupt, evil scumbags like Clarke to line their own pockets and force their fucked up ideology on us. To achieve what? Other than to fuck up the lives of a bunch of ignorant peasants. They are fucking idiots and should be strung up a la 1789. Scum.
Rant over. As you were.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Redbaiter “It would not surprise me to learn that the story we are hearing, (that the payment was made to help Winston with his legal expenses) is completely false.”
Lets remember that Clarkson was awarded $40k for his costs in the case. If Henry paid that from the $100k that would mean his costs where 50% higher than Clarkson’s which is strange for a “blood brother” who doesn’t care about charging Winnie fees. But Henry said he paid the $40k out of his own pocket, and then Winnie suddenly remembered that he actually paid it. So if either is correct then the $100k was not used to pay the $40k meaning Henry’s costs were 2.5 times higher than Clarkson’s for that court case. This does seem a bit dodgy.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:34 am
all you righties spinning around in ever-decreasing circles..in danger of disappearing up your own butts..
..and focussing on the miniutae of the ‘case’..
wake up..!
‘the plan’..hasn’t worked..!
..you are in deep election-result shit..!
..buckle up..!..for another three years in opposition..!
..(and hasn’t it all turned to ashcroft-tinted crap for you..so quickly..?..)
..y’know..!..i reckon enough new zealanders don’t like secret agendas/foreign rightwing ‘shady’/secret finaniers..and bullying..
..enough not to elect you as a government..
..eh..?
..national/those who have obviously schemed/plotted/acted to destroy peters..
..are coming into ever clearer focus..
..as being the ‘baddies’..in all of this..
and..um..!..the ‘how sweet it is!’ irony in this..
..is that it is all your own work..
..eh..?
..and i reckon that’s fucken brilliant..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Oh look, here comes NZ’s most ignorant parasite to add yet another pile of unintelligible bullshit to the mix.
A clueless, jobless deadbeat with all the pride of a prison rape victim.
‘the plan’ to lure Winnie and Helen into corruption, love it, but I don’t think they needed any help on that count.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Philu,do live in an alternative universe?.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
and they..new zealanders..aren’t stupid enough not to note/factor in the fact that national ‘laundered’/hid 2 million dollars from ‘secret’ donors..
..through the waitemata trust..
..in the run-up to the 2005 election..
..and wasn’t act paid huge bribes to do things..?
..which they duly did..?
..see..we can all smell the stench of hypocrisy around the accusers here..eh..?
..the fact that national..by a country mile..has had its’ policies bought..by big business..and the like..
..and has been the biggest recipient of secret donations..for decades..
..in amounts that make this $100,000 look like small change..
(williams (wryly) noted..”i’ve been in this fundraising business for decades..and only once has someone offered me anything like $500,000..”)
..it is the long history of national/national policy being ‘bought’/financed by vested-interests/the establishment elites..
..that is perhaps one of the strongest threads in the argument for state funding of politicians/elections..
..in the long run..it will cost us much less..
..eh..?
(and once again..all your own work..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
sbk, unfortunately, no, since he can still post in this one.
But he is a very strong indication that string theory shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Nor should he.
Phil: You can be sure that will also be the last time anyone offers Williams $500k.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Winston lives in another universe, obviously in his world everyone’s memory is faulty bar his!
September 12th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Erratum. I thought this situation was an indictment of a shonky administration which had been bought and paid for to rig the coalition, and keep it in power, bypass the cross-party calls to end anonymous donations, and cover up the nasty isnider dealings between Williams, Clark, Peters and Glenn, in part caused by the MMP system, but all along the whole thing was a cleverly constructed piece of guerilla theatre designed to illustrate the merits of state-funding for political parties.
Thank you Labour. Thank you Helen, for showing me the true light.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Who the fuck is this “us” you are referring to phil?
You do not contribute anything to anyone, you are merely another parasite wasting other peoples money for your own self serving needs.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am
oh..!..and let’s not forget..
..that key was brashs’ bag-man during that (2005) time..
..eh..?
and isn’t that faux-piety from the likes of key/hide..even more delicious..
..when you factor in the fact most of us have as a given that most politicians are lying duplicitous bastards..
..who bullshit us from dawn ’till dusk..and beyond..
(b.t.w..the backwash from this..will ensure the greens get a good result in the election..
..if only for the reason there is/never has been the slightest hint of that smell of corruption around them..
..which other parties can say that..?..with a ‘straight face’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Brash resigned.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
NO means Not Onest.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
:
phil has the social conscience of a dog caught short on a croquet lawn
:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
petal and others,
It is indeed amazing, no staggering, that despite all of what has been going on, Labour is gaining more and more support in the polls. It never stops to surprise me how “gullable” the average New Zealanders are.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
philu …
National DECLARED their donations.
Labour DECLARED their donations
Greens DECLARED their donations
ACT DECLARED their donations
Winston First DIDN’T DECLARE their donations
Spot the difference …. Duh double Duh
September 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Philu,the Greens supported the EFA and therefore, corrupt as their coalition partners!
September 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
It just keeps coming for Helen.
Now Paul Moroney is saying that over 3 months ago he told his sister (Labour’s whip Sue Moroney) about all the matters he put in his affidavit. Can we really beleive that infomration was not passed on to Helen. I bet Christmas will be fun for the Moroney family.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:20 am
What says it of man who argues with a fool?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
And the next statement from HC will probably go something like:
“There remains insufficient evidence to determine exactly what happened between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn. The conflicting evidence would make it unreasonable for me to take any action at this point so I am happy to leave it up to voters at the polls.”
“Mr Peters will therefore remain stood-down from his ministerial position but he will not be sacked”
That will avoid the risk of (as one commentator put it) Peters “going feral” and exposing Clark’s deceit and dishonesty over her own involvement in this sad affair.
Of course we still won’t know when that election will be but I’m picking she knows that a month (or two) is a long time in politics and she’ll be hoping that the great unwashed will have largely forgotten this mess by the time they turn up at the polling booth.
Suffice to say that she’ll have her troops digging like hell for *any* dirt they can use against National to further push the WP situation into the background by election day.
Can someone remind me why we keep paying (any of) these people?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am
what says it of man who has no arguments..?
..only ad hominems..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Murray, never argue with an idiot – they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“What says it of man who argues with a fool?”
Damn right.. another thread totally fucked up.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Chris Trotter’s good piece in yesterday’s Independent helped my thinking.
Winston was a brilliant Minister of Racing because he was such a punter.
Whereas others punt on the horses he punted on not being found out about his pathological lying.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
The Wine Box events were definitely not without elements of truth, but there is a considerable difference between someone who rails against those injustices and untruths to reveal what was really going on, and someone who kicks the tires regularly if not persistently in a populous way to keep himself in the news headlines without really proving much but that he ‘must be worth something’. The first is useful, the second is self-serving and is tantamount to a secondary Wine Box crime, taking advantage of the headlines and ongoing unravelling in self aggrandisement.
To try to revert elements of the present Owen Glenn/Winston/Helen situation to any Wine Box references, after 15 years, as a vendetta, is pathetic, especially taking into account the set-ups of coinciding phone calls, related e-mails, Karaka meetings and conversations “steel reinforced concrete as opposed to bullshit on stilts”.
Hollywood would drop the script as being naively beyond all credibility to hold a real audience for even the first twenty minutes – what used to be the first reel’s duration and the point where if the audience was starting to drift out, it wasn’t really worth putting any of the other reels on, even in random order.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Somebody promised something for the money.
Who, What, Why, When, Where and How?
My guess-
Who- Messrs Williams and Peters to Mr Glenn.
What- the honorary consulship of New Zealand in Monaco.
Why- to save Mr Peters from becoming bankrupt; his price for supporting a Labour government
When- sometime between 1.26 pm and 1.33 p.m. on the 14th December 2005; earlier promises had been made
How- negotiated by Mr Peters and Glen, facilitated by Mr Williams.
Or maybe it is all just a media beat-up.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Once again Redbaiter is 100% correct, his comments highlight the outrageous left wing media bias in NZ.
Can you imagine the heat that would be on the Nat’s if one of their benefactors offered a “donation” to another party on the basis that they go into coalition with National?… the pinko media would be in a frenzy.
There is an orchestrated campaign by the left wing media to minimise Klark’s and Labour’s involvement in all this, the fact that they refuse to follow up on the revelations in “Absolute Power” and the way they have ignored the fact that Glenn bribed Peters to go into a coalition with Labour is proof of this corruption.
These same media “slime” (an accurate description coined by Bob Jones) went feral over the falsehoods and lies contained in Nicky Hagers book, they refused to point out the lies or half truths, all they cared about was that it helped Labour.
Make no mistake, Peters lies are simply a side show, the real issue here is that a Labour party man bribed Peters so he would go into a coalition with Labour, that alone should be enough to force the resignation of dear corrupt leader.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
One question the media forgot to ask OG was did he offer the Maori Party $250k and if so why and did Mike Williams OK that as well. Does anyone know anything more about that?
September 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
he was asked that..he said no..it wasn’t him..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Bevan, never wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit, but the pig likes it.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
apologies..!..i forgot to mention that not only does murray do ad hominems..
his other talent is made-up simplistic homilies..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for clearing that one up for me, Phil. There is so much bullshit floating around it’s not surprising to find one has inadvertently swallowed some of it.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I am a political bs novice (thankfully) can someone please tell me how come it is legal or appropriate for someone who is under 3 separate investigations (police, SFO and priv committee) to be instrumental in passing the most contentious legislation in NZ for years? (ETS) Taken to it’s conclusion, if Clark knew in February or earlier then the issue should have been addressed then. If it had then it puts bad light on any legislation passed in the last 6 months by the supprt of NZ First?? Bizarre.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Perhaps DPF or someone with legal knowledge could answer this?
IF, during the negotiations to form a new government in 2005, Helen Clark offered Winston Peters financial assistance (in the form of getting a wealthy donor to make a suitable donation to assist Winston Peters with his legal fees) in order to secure his support to form a ministry, would that not be bribery of a public servant?