Winston’s story

September 16th, 2008 at 4:41 pm by David Farrar

This Tremain cartoon, taken from Homepaddock, sums it all up.

The TVNZ midday news saw political reporter try to explain what the Peters/Henry story now was, and you could see the palpable disbelief.

Colin Espiner blogs a line he stole from brother Guyon:

My dear brother Guyon has pinched a few lines off me over the years, so I’m going to nick one of his: The only testimony could have delivered before the today that was less credible is if Winston Peters’ lawyer had simply said: “My dog ate it.”

Well the dog ate the phone bill from the mystery motel he claims to have ring from!

New Zealand First insiders and Peters himself had talked tough over Henry’s recall to the committee this morning, claiming to some journalists that the lawyer would provide evidence this morning that refuted Owen Glenn’s version of events. He did nothing of the sort.

Indeed, everything Henry said and offered this morning in the way of evidence simply corroborated Glenn’s version of events.

You have to wonder what sort of morons talk up in advance evidence that actually proves their Leader lied, and corroborates what Owen Glenn said. Either they didn’t know what Brian Henry was going to say (which means they have blind faith) or they didn’t understand how damning it would be for Peters and Henry.

In my opinion, Henry offered doubt today but it was not reasonable.

Indeed. Reasonable doubt means exactly that – is it reasonable. No reasonable person can really doubt that Peters has lied. And as it so happens the Privileges Committee does not even need to satisfy the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. They merely need to satisfy “on the balance of probabilities”.

Will this finally be enough for Clark to sack Peters? I doubt it.

I doubt it also. She needs Peters after the election, so that means minor stuff like lying the public, lying to the media, false declarations, and lying to the Privileges Committee are all forgiveable by Clark.

UPDATE: NZPA quotes the Laboru Party MPs trying to defend Winston:

Labour MPs said the way Mr Glenn and Mr Henry referred to each other by first names in emails showed familiarity.

So these MPs have no shame? no standards at all? They are so desperate to protect Winston (and incidentially declare their largest ever donor to be a liar) that their defence is that first names were used in emails.

This is so pitiful, I won’t even bother pointing out the gaping flaws in their argument. I’ll let readers do that for me.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

52 Responses to “Winston’s story”

  1. serge (108 comments) says:

    I call for the resignation of the Prime Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Does this mean Fido is part of the VRWC?

    I doubt even a dog with no taste buds could stomach that pile of shit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Heck, this is one hell of a long five minutes…!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Your Honour: My client slipped, whilst holding a knife, and fell on the complainant……………….32 times

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lindsay Addie (1,156 comments) says:

    Shoot the bloody Poodle Helen!!

    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Dead political party walking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Gravyman62 (37 comments) says:

    Memo to Winston: Time to employ Denny Crane. At least we’d get a laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (7,994 comments) says:

    This term of parliament started in disrepute with stolen tax payers money and retrospective validations – it ends like it started.

    Only in NZ could a bunch of self serving pricks get away with so much for so long and not be required to resign in shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    In terms of outcome the real test will be what the Greens, Dunne and Maori decide on the committee. We know Labour MP’s are so desperate either for power or to cover up that they will argue their is sufficient doubt, incredible as it may seem.

    But will the Greens and Dunne finally show so bottle and independence and call him for what he is?

    Maori too need stand on this. Credibility and TRUST is on the line for these players.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. frog (84 comments) says:

    I’m certainly waiting for the answer to that one, boomtownprat. The testimony is questionable. Will it be questionable enough to get Peters off the hook? I only heard about 2/3 of the public testimony. The amount of that which was “I don’t recall” was significant. It’s a circus all right.

    Just as an aside – it is Labour’s tagline to say it’s all about trust.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    Has Winston hired J K Rowling as his adviser?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    You have to wonder what sort of morons talk up in advance evidence that actually proves their Leader lied, and corroborates what Owen Glenn said. Either they didn’t know what Brian Henry was going to say (which means they have blind faith) or they didn’t understand how damning it would be for Peters and Henry.

    Blind faith to a degree perhaps. But in fact it’s a deliberate strategy. Having nothing with which they can legitimately defend Winston, they thump their chests and claim their boss will demolish the evidence.

    This is read by the intellectually slothful types who like their news in easily digestible sound bites and who flip past anything that looks like analysis or is more than 50 words long. And then turn out to vote for Winston because, “well, he said he had an answer and so he must have done, right? Now what’s on Sky Sport?”. Thank goodness for cartoons like that above, which is about the only analysis they bother to absorb.

    I regularly met these types when I worked with Winston. They’d come up and say how good was our immigration policy (which I’d based on Terry Heffernan’s exhaustive, and absolutely correct analysis of the statistics). I’d start saying how pleased I was that people were taking the trouble to understand the somewhat complex policy issues underlying what we were saying and start discussing the statistics, and see their faces cloud over in boredom.

    While the policy had a solid basis in fact, they weren’t going to bother actually thinking about it. So when what Winston (or his minders) are saying has no basis whatsoever in fact, the same lack of critical faculties are applied.

    Sure the number of such people has waned, but Winston knows he only has to convince 5% of the intellectually lazy to believe him. Sadly, my experience is that most of those people aren’t stupid per se. Engage them in a debate about the All Blacks’ match statistics and they’re a mine of information.

    Think of the comments of Winston’s minders as trying to appeal to that same part of the brain that is happy to accept other post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments and it becomes clearer: Winston said he had the evidence to clear himself; I’m too lazy to understand whether or not he did but someone would hardly say that if they didn’t; so therefore those criticising Winston must be doing so from a position of irrational bias.

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

    Winston’s innocent!

    It was just an error of judgement… a lapse of forethought… a … moment of befuddlement

    … oh come on we’ve all lost the car keys before and didn’t John Key once work for Merrill Lynch… he did …stuff!

    …and it’s just that there are so many phone calls that one can make within a four minute period…

    and… TRUST did I mention TRUST!

    Pricks! Rich pricks!

    be reasonable…

    MOVE ON! DAMN YOU!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    I’m just glad there was an “innocent explanation” just as Uncle “trustworthy” Helen assumed there would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    I hear that Clark has just increased the standard required to sack Winston. There has to be a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt by a jury made up of Winston’s fans and family and a confession written in Winston’s blood by Winston delivered to Audrey Young with an apology.

    [DPF: heh very good]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Questionable to get Winston off the hook???? WTF???

    If he talks enough crap he walks?

    Some strange new concept of justice that we don’t have in my universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Brian Henry told Ben Thomas (August 20 2008) what the donation was used for. Henry makes it clear that the $100k was for the electoral petition ‘costs’ and Henrys time ‘Fees” were donated to Winston.

    Ben Thomas: “I’m still not clear on this. If there’s no debt Peters owes, what exactly were you collecting money from Glenn for?”
    Brian Henry: “The eventual final costs of the electoral petition. He’s just making a contribution towards those costs. Paid to me on account towards a final bill when rendered”.
    “There is no bill, there’s no debt. Nobody understands that yet. There is no debt owed by Winston Peters to me until the invoice is rendered and there is no invoice rendered. Full stop. End of discussion.”
    Ben Thomas: So you’re contending you have donated time to Winston Peters?
    Brian Henry: I can donate any time I wish to Winston Peters and that is completely lawful.
    Ben Thomas: Is that what you’re saying has happened here?
    Brian Henry: I’ve donated a huge amount of time to Winston over the years – completely huge – and this is the exact same thing. Winston’s talking about a moral obligation to pay, not a legal obligation, and he works very hard at that moral obligation. Make no error.
    Ben Thomas: So the Glenn donation has stayed with you?
    Brian Henry: No, it’s simply paid on account of my costs, quite lawfully paid on account of my costs.
    Ben Thomas: So is it sitting there in anticipation of the bill, or is it a set-off?
    Brian Henry: No. It’s paid to me, then it’s taken into my books as money paid on account of my costs, which I as a barrister am entitled to do.

    Today however in the Privileges committee Brian Henry claimed that he was also (at that time) consulting with ‘other political factions’ on an electoral petition for the seat of Epsom. Henry stated “But this failed, as they could not raise the $100,000 I asked for as fees”

    So what’s the cost of an electoral petition from Brian Henry? Is it $100k for costs, or $100k for costs and fees? Either he tripped himself up, or he was doing a freebie for the ‘other political factions’ as well?

    I’m wondering if the blood used to consummate the ‘blood brothers’ contained the porkies gene

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

    There can be no doubt the poodle man has the dirt on the great one. Arseholes the lot of them !! . Let them enjoy their last moments, it will be their death embrace as far as the voters are concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    I’d trust the Mongrel Mob before I’d trust any of this lot. ‘Lawmakers’, who are nothing but crooks, liers and charlatans. They give criminals a bad name and disgust me to the core.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    It was reported that there were three people that believed Winstone but after reading Chris Trotter’s Blog I now know that there are four

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dad4justice (7,966 comments) says:

    Talking about the Mongrel Mob I was shocked to hear on Nine to Noon on Feminist Radio today that the Mongrel Mob is much like the RSA and the pathetic women hosting just let the comment slide without a murmur of objection !!! What is the key to those drop kick fembots on National Radio? Disgusting insult paid for by the tax payer. Close down the station !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    This has all been an elaborate charade just to divert our attention from the fact that Winston hasn’t yet paid back the $158,000 he owes Parliamentary Services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. heathcote (103 comments) says:

    Liars all of them!

    I simply cannot believe the levels to which Winston Peters, Brian Henry, Helen Clark, Mike Williams et al have sunk in their desperate attempt to hang on to power at all costs. Do they think we are stupid? They should be ashamed at the way they have tarnished the good name of New Zealand. As for Michael Cullen, well I suppose he is acting true to form. Sounds to me he can’t get over his ‘rich prick’ comment regarding John Key, and is now somehow trying to link him to Merrill Lynch’s demise. God forbid, whatever next?

    The Labour Party and NZ First have lowered the standard of politics in NZ. They are a disgrace and we will be well shot of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    With the polls as they stand, Clark cannot afford to dump Peters. Now that Key has acted and rules out Peters, it’s too late for Helen.

    With the support at present, Clark needs the support of the greens, NZ First, the Prog’s, the Maori Party and United Future.

    A coalition of L,G,N,M,P,U. Yeah, That’d work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ross Miller (1,681 comments) says:

    Ok, I give in to the undoubted intellectual superiority, innate wisdom, fairness and good sense of Cullen and co, and accept unreservedly that Winston is squeeky clean, that pigs fly, the earth is flat and the Popes a Prodestant.

    Does that mean I have to put my money with Dominion Finance too?

    Just asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    heathcote

    ” Do they think we are stupid?”

    The sad and irrefutable evidence suggests that at least 45% of the population are indeed mind numbingly stupid.

    Our media are also stupid as they have basically given Klark a free ride over this, can you imagine if one of the Nat’s donors said disparaging things about Key, our media would be all over it like a rash.

    When you take into account the stupidity of the left (which at the moment totals about 45%) and a biased media’s determined to paint dear corrupt leader in the best possible light then we may just be “stupid” enough to vote these corrupt wankers back into power.

    Then again, they do say that a country gets the got it deserves, when you read Rex’s excellent summation of the average voter there is an argument that suggest we do not deserve an honest and competent Nat/ACT govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Lindsay Addie (1,156 comments) says:

    This saying by Bismarck says it all regarding Peters and friends:

    People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Perhaps the PM had more important things to think about such as the $60b spend of the NZ state, the pressing issues of climate change and the overseas credit crunch. Perhaps she asked both donor and donee, worked out there was a conflict and then was distracted by something actually much more important like the Emissions Trading Bill or the Biofuels Bill. Maybe she worked out there was no story here as she and Labour had properly declared their Glenn donation unlike the National Party that in 2005 received $1.5m from the Waitemata Trust and hid the actual donors from public view.

    This is such a non story.

    Open up the records of the Waitemata Trust and we can then have a proper debate.

    BB deserves a response. Sorry to shatter your feeling of superiority but Labour actually enjoys the support of the majority of the intelligencia of the country. Just look at National’s approach. No policy, too much risk that people will think about it, or find the holes, go LABOUR LITE, promise people the same and a tax cut and avoid having to show how it is possible, and shiver every time Wilkinson or English or Williamson actually say what they think. It is hoping that people do not think before chosing but go for that nice man John Key who is … well he seems nice.

    To finish BB you are right the coundry does not deserve a Nat/ACT govt, it deserves so much better than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    mickeysavage: we’ve been through this so many times. Try to keep up. T

    he difference here is that National are fully within the law, as are Labour with their anonymous trust. Secret trusts, however, are not within the law.

    There is no moral equivalence here that you can hide behind, Winston broke the law, and broke the law not by accident, but deliberately and for political benefit.

    He then attempted to hide it, presumably because every other time the media have asked him questions about anything he has managed to get out of it with bluff and bluster. This despite him clearly having done wrong. The problem for Winston is that once someone pierced the armour for the first time, everyone suddenly realised that he was actually flat out lying about a bunch of stuff. All those old stories suddenly came back to life – the media had put them on ice because they had never considered that Winston’s denials might be flat out lies.

    So, nice diversion attempt, but completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. Oh, and “National has no policy”. Puhleeze. How much policy have Labour announced for the upcoming election? What’s that, only 1 National policy? As found by independent researchers? I’m thinking you’ve been out of the country for a few weeks, and have missed the latest talking points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Sorry PaulL which is the Labour secret trust? Please name it.

    Please also specify the law that Winston broke. I am pretty sure that he told a porkie or two but I do not know of any law that he transgressed.

    Of course he tried to hide the donation. As Brian Henry said the technique was that learned by him in conducting the National Waiarapa Wyatt Creech challenge in 1987.

    And Labour’s policy? This really is a joke. Go to beehive.govt.nz and read any of a thousand papers to see what Labour is doing. If you want the Readers Digest version read any of Cullen’s budget speeches or the speeches from the Throne from the past 9 years. Marvel also at how the Labour Government has done exactly what it said it would do.

    BTW the only actual National Policy that I have seen released is that by Trevor Mallard. Now who is that MP who continuously accidently leaves papers lying around? Is he the same one who accidentally mentioned to TV3 that Key had met Ashcroft, you know the meeting that Key seemed not to know about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    mickysavage: try to keep up with what I wrote.

    1. I didn’t say that Labour had a secret trust, I said they had an anonymous trust. If they had a secret trust I wouldn’t know about it. Take a look at their donation returns for the last few years. It is listed on there.

    2. NZ First broke electoral law by filing false electoral returns. The bit where he failed to disclose the donations from the Spencer Trust. The police are currently investigating it, the Electoral Office have asked NZ First to refile the returns.

    3. He illegally hid the donation. You can direct donations through trusts as National do so long as you declare the donation from the trust so we can all complain about it (as you are doing in respect of National). Winston didn’t declare the donation, removing our ability to call him on his hypocrisy when he stood on a platform of ‘no secret trusts’

    4. Labour have announced no election policy. If you are saying that they plan to do nothing in the next three years, just steady as she goes, then I guess that is an election platform. I’m pretty sure it isn’t though. And, by the way, the Labour government has done a bunch of things they never said they would do – secret agenda perhaps? In fact, the Labour government has in some areas (anti-smacking law) done the exact opposite of what they said they’d do. Wise up.

    5. I’m sure that the only policy you have seen is the one Trevor released. There is a lot of it, and it is available on their website, in speeches, and has been released to the media. But I guess if you don’t look at any of it, then you wouldn’t have seen it. Been taking lessons from Winston by any chance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Micky, get a grip please.

    Your beloved Labour party spent $800k illegally, against the advice of Parliamentary services, in order to STEAL and election, and then RETROSPECTIVELY passed legislation to make it legal!

    As for Cullens budget speeches, all they were was spendng OUR tax surpluses, that were generated by the prevailing global economic conditions. He may as well have taken credit for the sun coming up!

    Additionally, why shouldn’t John Key meet with Lord Ashcroft! It’s not a crime to meet people for goodness sake!

    National Party Policy, hmm, like The Broadband initiative. The promise to reduce hospital beurocrats and instigate responsible spending in health. To maintain doctors subsidies, to fund infrastructure..

    There are none so blind..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. heathcote (103 comments) says:

    I’m quite sure Michael Joseph Savage would be turning in his grave at the disgraceful behaviour of the current crop of Labour poiliticians. It’s bad enough you should be using his name.

    Your lame excuse that Helen Clark is preoccupied is about par for the course for her apologists. The fact is the Waitemata Trust acted entirely within the law, and you know that. Finally your grasping argument regarding National reeks of desperation. Labour is going out and you know it. Get used to it.

    And by the way, we can look forward to far better governance from National than the dishonest lot who infest the government benches at present.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. reid (16,095 comments) says:

    mickeysavage: “Labour actually enjoys the support of the majority of the intelligencia of the country”

    I’d put the number of university-educated people who vote conservative up against the number of Liarbore’s “intelligentsia” any day of the week.

    I daresay the numbers of professionals that don’t work in the education industries vastly outnumber those that do and you’ll find if you care to look, that once people get out of the cosseted state environment most of them don’t vote Liarbore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mara (751 comments) says:

    I,ve got a few miles on the clock and can remember when NZ had some moral authority and well deserved pride. We punched above our weight , and despite our tiny size, we were respected. All gone now. We peep, whine, snivel and bang on about democratic failings in other countries (except China, now of course) but wonder why we are now being globally ignored and falling apart, socially and economically. We do need a change of Government, but I wish Key had bigger balls. I worry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    PaulL – anti smacking law, a favourite of mine. It was not a Labour bill, rather a private bill by Sue Bradford, the Green MP. It was based on solid empirical studies, those European states with anti smacking legislation had a lower infant mortality rate from violence than those states with no such legislation. What price the lives of a few kids?

    Did not John Key and National support the final bill? How do you feel about this?

    There is no proof that Peters hid the donation. All that can be said is that the party secretary stuffed up. Maybe Peters did stuff up as well. How is Helen involved?

    As for Labour party policy, you have obviously not read any of the papers. Many of them go to 2020 or 2030 or further. Real leadership requires that sort of foresight. We do not need a forex dealer type foresight that goes from anything from 10 minutes to 3 months ahead.

    I have actually read much of National’s speeches. I keep being reminded of that American saying, “Where’s the beef?”

    ROWIWOR – we seem to hate the distribution of information or the recording of political promises. Please explain why?

    Please also check the debt levels. They have tracked down very nicely thank you very much. Add in the Cullen Super Fund (I like saying that) and those surpluses have been spent very wisely.

    Key can meet with Ashcroft. He should not be embarassed to do this and try and hide it. He should also disclose the donations that National is receiving.

    Infrastructure funding is very good thank you very much. Just look at the transport spend over the past 9 years. The Broadband initiative will give back to Telecom their previous monopoly control of our telecommunications. Not such a good idea I think …

    BTW the only National Health policy that I have seen is to allow Doctors to charge what they want. Fine for the doctors but I worry about the patients.

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

    This story is about as solid as the new ship HMNZS they purchased recently and are afraid to take out on stormy seas. I was told it cost 171 million and now they have to spend another 20 million on improvements. Guess who’s going to pay for that. I know nothing about boats or ships but you only have to look at it to see it’s a dog. We have no armed forces and those that are left in the armed forces are as laughable as the politicians. I see the NZ navy on exercises to stop weapons of mass destruction, spare me. I thought it was another Tui’s ad. Those within Labour are wasting tax payer dollars hand over fist. Idiots idiots every one. Watch the exodus to Aussie if they get back in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    MS “There is no proof that Peters hid the donation. All that can be said is that the party secretary stuffed up. Maybe Peters did stuff up as well. How is Helen involved?”

    Sand, head, buried, the, in. Make a sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. burt (7,994 comments) says:

    Hagues

    The PM knew of the donation for about 6 months longer than the public had certainty. She choose to conveniently take Peters word that Owen Glenn was wrong. That is how Helen is involved. It appears that Helen also knew that Mike Williams was over asking Owen Glenn for some more play money just a few months back. So get this – while still wanting to milk the sugar daddy Labour were acting as if Owen Glenn was a liar and conveniently letting Peters mislead the opposition and the public with his “NO” debacle.

    Any part of that not factual and not creating a situation of “involved” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    burt I’m with you on that. I was pointing out that Mickysavage had his head in the sand if he didn’t think Winnie had done anything wrong or that Helen wasn’t involved. Lets not forget that Mike Williams also first gave the OK for it in 2005 and he sure as heck would have had Helen’s permission. Also Labour’s whip was told by her brother, who no doubt told Helen. So all that “oh there must be some innocent explanation” was bullshit, she knew the truth all along.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (7,994 comments) says:

    I’m banned again on the standard. Oh dear. I made reference to ‘folk of the 9th Floor standard’, had the offensive reference all struck out as shown and still got slapped for a week. Go figure on a thread about Robinsod outting a ‘National party blogger’ ( see: Nats’ dirty tricks exposed? )

    So I agree with Clint, add ‘The Standard’ to the list of Labour party sponsored mouth pieces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (7,994 comments) says:

    Hagues

    Doooh. Jumped on the comment without sufficient context. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. GNZ (228 comments) says:

    If the privileges committee is split exactly along party lines – we can only assume all the members were instructed to do so by their leaders and thy did not make their decision based on the evidence – if so this is the equivalent of all the supreme court judges making a decision not to convict a white person based on them being being white.

    If so, it is a intolerable sort of corruption – and its shocking that we seem so blase about it. Regardless of whether Winston is found guilty in one of the other cases it is clear that in NZ a court with no right of appeal is clearly, for all to see, a complete farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Gerard Barry (27 comments) says:

    The question that should be asked of Helen Clark is this:

    “What has Winston Peters and NZ First got on you and your government that prevents you and members of the Labour Party from condemning him as a liar, fraud and a person not fit to reperesent your government as a cabinet minister?”

    Ask this question – please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to see how the vote goes. Duncan Garner on 3 News this morning said that while Henry was giving evidence, there were people laughing openly at the sheer ridiculousness of it all.

    I don’t see the Nats protecting Peters. Labour should find against him, they are campaigning on trust after all, but if they felt they could get rid of him, they would have done so by now. Even if the vote goes along party lines, and NZ First vote in favour with Labour, and ACT and National Vote against Peters, I still see Peters going down. The Greens have taken a stance that reeks of fairness, and Peter Dunne knows which way the wind is blowing and has nothing to lose. The Maori Party is the one party I cannot pick, But Hone Harawira is not one to suffer fools, and I think he knows a dodgy deal when he sees it.

    So the wash up.

    Against Peters will be: the 3 Nats, Act, United Future, Greens. 6 votes

    For Peters may be: 3 Labour, NZ first. 4 votes

    Undecided: Maori. 1 Vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    What Patrick Starr has said above (repeated below) is *very* important:

    “Today however in the Privileges committee Brian Henry claimed that he was also (at that time) consulting with ‘other political factions’ on an electoral petition for the seat of Epsom. Henry stated “But this failed, as they could not raise the $100,000 I asked for as fees”
    So what’s the cost of an electoral petition from Brian Henry? Is it $100k for costs, or $100k for costs and fees? Either he tripped himself up, or he was doing a freebie for the ‘other political factions’ as well?”

    In light of this, read this:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10352682

    And in light of all of Patrick’s work read this:

    http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/09/peter-williams-on-privileges-committee.html

    Mike Williams must be called to the Privileges Committee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne must know that if Peters is out, he picks up a decent chunk of that vote. I’d expect to see him voting against Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    MickeySavage:

    “…….Marvel also at how the Labour Government has done exactly what it said it would do……”

    EHHHH???? You mean, like, move NZ back into the top half of the OECD? Like, make the public health system so efficient that Private hospitals would be superfluous?

    Yeah, Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    MickeySavage: “Labour actually enjoys the support of the majority of the intelligencia (sic) of the country”

    Firstly, I’d put the word “intelligentsia” in inverted commas, you know, the “intelligentsia”, hold up both hands, crook second and third fingers of both hands, wiggle second and third fingers up and down, as you say the word “intelligentsia”…….with that proviso, I would willingly repeat your statement…….

    And the fact that you can’t spell “intelligentsia” shows that you are one of the exact kind of people that I have in mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    MickeySavage:

    “As for Labour party policy, you have obviously not read any of the papers. Many of them go to 2020 or 2030 or further. Real leadership requires that sort of foresight……”

    He says, without a trace of shame at the history of Socialist dreamers ten year plans, twenty year plans, thirty year plans, “great leaps forward” and the like………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    MickeySavage:

    “…..Key can meet with Ashcroft. He should not be embarassed to do this and try and hide it. He should also disclose the donations that National is receiving…..”

    Old socialists habits die hard, eh, like judging all politicians by your own hypocritical standards…..the possibility that John Key might not have got donations from Lord Ashcroft, or that the Nats actually do declare the donations received by them, is a foreign concept.

    Read “Dirty Politics, Dirty Times” by Lord Ashcroft, Mickey. I sincerely hope that Ashcroft is advising the Nats how to bust open corruption and collusion on the part of their political enemies, including the socialists media lapdogs; Ashcroft is an expert on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    Brilliant cartoon.

    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.