News frenzy: Peters v. PM
So much on at the moment:Obama announced Democratic nominee by Clinton
Good
Russia conflict with Georgia draws in Western powers
Bad
Tasers introduced by Police Commissioner
Cynical - to divert attention - he pretty much confessed it to Katherine Ryan this morning on National Radio. The Commissioner wanted to consult MPs because he cares so much what they think? - but his own Policing Act he had drafted ensures he is responsible to the PM and not to parliament. The Police Minister used the sham to get Winston down the agenda. It was pathetic. The Greens and the Maori party came out heavily against it, and yet, this morning - less than 24 hours after parliamentary consultation he makes his decision to arm police with tasers. No one believes this was timed as anything but a diversion. The police get their electric guns through while everyone is busy. If they have tasers now, does that mean they will relinquish their firearms? Never.
Winston Peters corruption scandal
Brilliant, isn't it. Winston's slush fund diagram is changing by the hour now. Should have it updated tonight. The PM is under huge pressure to move on this after Key successfully unercut her by "ruling him out". Her opportunity to get wrestle this one back was lost yesterday. If the Privilieges Committee comes out against him (and after he'd help Labour pass the Emissions scheme) it will be too late. If she fires him then it would lack all credibility.
TV3 just has news now:
Clark says Glenn told her about NZ first donation in February
Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:08p.m.
Prime Minister Helen Clark has said Owen Glenn told her earlier this year that he had given $100,000 to New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, but Mr Peters had told her the expatriate billionaire was wrong.
Miss Clark told reporters that Mr Glenn had told her about the donation at a meeting in February.
Miss Clark said that when she had run this by Mr Peters, he had told her that Mr Glenn was mistaken.
These conversations all took place before Mr Peters held a press conference at which he strenuously denied receiving any money from Mr Glenn.
NZPA
This looks like a bomb-shell. Or some sort of explosive device. It means Peters has lied to the public and to the PM and that she knew about it?... or was she - as she still is - seeking clarification. Is the PM manoeuvring to get him out now?
But I'm more concerned with:
Last chance to lodge a Waitangi Tribunal claim about Maori getting screwed over by the Crown - if that screwing over occured before September 1992 - is 1 Sept. (effectively tomorrow). That is Crown justice for you. ANd it will be totally lost in a blizzard of ephemeral political shitstorming.
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 12:09 pm
22 comments
22 Comments:
TV1 had the news about Peters, Clark and Glenn before 3 had it. TV3 had to run a quick "breaking news" item half way down their first segment, after TVNZ reported it at the top of their midday bulletin.
So Clark knew, so she must have a strategy and for her to drop this bombshell now means what - she's setting the stage for when the Priviledges committee comes back, what are we saying - the end of next week? Okay, so priviledges comes back, damning report, Clark sacks him and with no supply or confidence motions can she govern without him till September 27th to maximise her recent Poll lift?
Bomber: Her actions could mean two things
1) Owen Glenn was about to come out and say Clark knew - better for it to come from Clark and control the release than from Glenn.
and/or
2) She reacted to Key's move yesterday and is subtly casting Winston aside. She knows Winston is fucked, but she now calculates that he can't go anywhere. So its Labour or nothing. Winston has lost the leverage, so Clark moves, sends a message that she is strong but doesnt go as far as to sack him and lose the vote on the ETS.
Thoughts Bomber?
So Clark knew, so she must have a strategy and for her to drop this bombshell now means what
It means she has been pretty damn deceitful to the country from the moment she was informed of Glens donation.
Her "taking Peters at his word" is absolute bullshit, only a complete fucking idiot would swallow this, but looking at the latest polls around 37% of our voting population must be just that.
That said I don't really believe you can be serious when you say:
"..she govern without him till September 27th to maximise her recent Poll lift?"
This is going to work in Labours favour? Really?
The Sunday News Roast is the self described "Best Political Team on Television". However, the best Political Analyst on this blog is SDM. Another top post Scott.
Her "taking Peters at his word" is absolute bullshit, only a complete fucking idiot would swallow this, but looking at the latest polls around 37% of our voting population must be just that.
I disagree, she knew about it and wanted further evidence, the question is if she is planning to sack him and she's clearly setting the stage for that.
However, the best Political Analyst on this blog is SDM. Another top post Scott.
Open your mouth a bit wider you can prolly get his balls in there as well, this is the man who said he hated Labour, hardly the font of unbiased opinion.
2) She reacted to Key's move yesterday and is subtly casting Winston aside. She knows Winston is fucked, but she now calculates that he can't go anywhere. So its Labour or nothing. Winston has lost the leverage, so Clark moves, sends a message that she is strong but doesnt go as far as to sack him and lose the vote on the ETS.
Yes I believe that was the point I made above.
I copy my comment from earlier
mawm said...
There is no doubt in my mind that Helen new the truth about the Owen Glen donation to Winston and has known about it since it was made.
Glenn made that donation because he wanted to give Labour support and would not have made it without checking with the Labour Party first (and getting their assurances that the 'gong' would duely be awarded and that the honorary Consulate would follow).
A non-philanthropic billionaire like Glenn makes decisions to donate money only if there is personal gain. Now that the 'promises' from Labour will not achieve what he wanted, he has absolutely no reason at all to keep stumm about their dirty dishonest dealings.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in his barristers chambers. And surely we can expect some more revelations from him.
28/8/08 9:47 AM
Yes we can - and Helen is going to have to try and anticipate what pieces of dirt he will reveal.
Watch all the ducking and diving from Labour in the next few days.
"Open your mouth a bit wider you can prolly get his balls in there as well, this is the man who said he hated Labour, hardly the font of unbiased opinion."
Are you the guy who hates tolls if National does it, but love them when Labour does i?. I guess corruption is Ok when it comes from the left.
I have no desire to suck Scott's balls, but I do enjoy watching him kick you in your balls everytime you open your mouth to defend this corrupt government.
Are you the guy who hates tolls if National does it, but love them when Labour does i?. I guess corruption is Ok when it comes from the left.
Where did I say that? I haven't posted on tolls on this blog?
I have no desire to suck Scott's balls, but I do enjoy watching him kick you in your balls everytime you open your mouth to defend this corrupt government.
What post defending this government? You've misplaced two quotes now to me in order to prove your point. Try again.
She's admitted tgo knowing there was a discrepancy in the story, that's not a hanging offence, and it is clear she is setting the stage to knock him off.
Piss off lol.
She's lied by omission for the last 6 months.
This is the PRIME MINISTER of our country for fucks sake.
You plebs start putting out the spin
- and it is clear she is setting the stage to knock him off.
That's bullshit.
She's done this to prempt Glenn from going public late next week.
She's hoping it will have sunk from sight by then.
Owen Glenn will NOT testify to the Privileges Committee next week or ever about this matter....
........because Helen's going to call the election date before next Wed night.
End of Privileges Committee investigation.
Then they just have to shaft the SFO investigation.
That will be the week after next.
Winston's started the set up this afternoon.
Lying, corrupt, self serving bunch of wankers.
They think we're all so stupid that they're going to get away with it.
That's how far out of touch they are.
legio x - What if Glenn's barrister releases more info before Clark can dissolve parliament?
Could be some interesting times ahead for the lying b**^ch.
What if Glenn's barrister releases more info before Clark can dissolve parliament?
Exactly why she's done what she's done.
Glenns lawyer won't release anything before the PC meets next Thurs.
Helens going to call the election before then ( I'm picking Tues 7pm announcement).
She's hoping to take the sting out of it.
Damage control BIG time.
Friggin hilarious though, the SFO aren't going to sit around and wait to be abolished.
They've seen their chance and they're going to take it.
It's metaphoric life and death for the SFO, Winston and Helen.
As Bo ber says -
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Glenns lawyer won't release anything before the PC meets next Thurs.
I wouldn't be too sure that they won't. If it doesn't pertain to the PC's investigation, it might just be released. Glenn is seriously pissed.
anon: appreciate the love. Ignore my critic - a labour hack.........
I still think a late election - clark's only hope is that people forget this.......wait as long as possible. Clark's actions today have cost her the election.
Moral of the story: having a nice haircut won't save you from the wrath of defamed (b)millionaires.
I wonder what else Glenn has at his disposal; emails or perhaps taped conversations.
All the righties would suddenly declare secret taping to be righteous and just, all the lefties would suddenly find secret taping vile and underhand....
Annnnd we're supposed to trust National and their 'say any old shit to get in (including faking a spy at their conferences to test dodgyer policies), then make other shit up after the election'?
I might just turn up, smear shit on my ballot paper, and leave. Far better use of the paper.
@ anon 3:46pm - If cops get tasers, why would they need guns? For the *rare* case of a suspect with a firearm, the AOS can - and is supposed to be - called, and they could be the only cops to still get guns. What's your problem with that?
And suspects with firearms are still rare, and mostly the cops are nowhere near when these incidents happen, like Navtej Singhs shop, or most other armed robberies - the cops turn up way later. So the guns aren't really needed are they?
Or is it just for the power thrill, like when armed cops go on drugs raids of dozens of houses in Manukau, and find no guns or ammo? Re-evaluate their 'intelligence'. Yeh, right! Never happens.
No guns for cops!
anon above: have you any idea about the logistics of the AOS or executing warrants? it is well known, not to you obviously, but the AOS need to be paged, gear up, be briefed, and then travel to the scene. what happens in that hour when there is some loser with a gun who starts roaming and threatening the safety of police and public? if you had your way the police would have to approach with a taser. real smart. go back to your little hole.
@ anon 3:46pm - If cops get tasers, why would they need guns? For the *rare* case of a suspect with a firearm, the AOS can - and is supposed to be - called, and they could be the only cops to still get guns. What's your problem with that?
And suspects with firearms are still rare, and mostly the cops are nowhere near when these incidents happen, like Navtej Singhs shop, or most other armed robberies - the cops turn up way later. So the guns aren't really needed are they?
Or is it just for the power thrill, like when armed cops go on drugs raids of dozens of houses in Manukau, and find no guns or ammo? Re-evaluate their 'intelligence'. Yeh, right! Never happens.
No guns for cops!
One word: Aramoana
Post a Comment
<< Home