Monday, 14 July 2008

He said "Sloppy"!

I have to say it's always amusing to hear Winston Peters lambast his accusers by calling them "lazy," guilty of "sloppy journalism" and claim the evidence against him is just "malicious lies." It's doubly amusing -- since as everyone knows this is a man who is a complete stranger to details with a near-total aversion to hard work, who can't lie straight in bed.

The primary problem Peters now faces is his own "sloppiness" with the truth (did the Cook Strait ferry ever run aground as he said it did? was anything ever found at the bottom of the Winebox as he claimed? did he really refuse the baubles of office as he promised? was the man with the illegal Winston First sign just "an enthusiastic supporter" who Winston said he didn't know? did Owen Glenn ever give him money, which Winston said he didn't)*; his own party's sloppiness with donations, and who may or may not have deposited what, and when (or not); and his own abject dishonesty in stealing money from the taxpayer to fund his last election campaign, and his childish games ever since in refusing to pay it back.

"Sloppy"doesn't begin to describe the dishonest poseur.

Here's Devo with a song for Winston: 'Sloppy.'

UPDATE 1: The Hive suggests the last job for the Serious Fraud Office before its demise should be investigating the Glenn loan or non-loan to NZ First. That would certainly motivate the SFO troops!

UPDATE 2: The conspiracy theories have started. I just received this in my inbox:

Now, I might be drawing a long bow here, but what if OG’s donations to NZ First were a set-up from the start?
What if he made donations under the direction of the Labour Party to NZ First as an insurance scheme for Labour?
Maybe, Peters either knew about the money but wanted to keep it quiet – why, we don’t know. It seems odd seeing he backed the EFB.
Or, Peters didn’t know about the money, it arrived in NZF’s bank account anyway, and Winston has been made to look a fool when OG comes out stating that he gave NZ First money.
Peters is caught with his fly down after denying the donations publicly, and Clark and Labour cut Peters loose when he looks like he’s becoming a liability.
A year or two ago I wouldn’t have considered something so outlandish, but after seeing Labour in action, I think nothing is beyond the realms of possibility.

Frankly, I think the ability of the Labour Party to organise anything suggests cockup more than conspiracy. But it's entertaining to speculate.

UPDATE 3: Frankly, you can only laugh when you hear Helen Clark saying it's not her job to investigate since Winston Peters's problems are "not the Labour Party's business" and she is "not a private police force" as she did just now on Newstalk ZB, since in the last nine years every goddamn thing anyone in this country does has been deemed to be "the Labour Party's business" -- that is, every goddamn thing except the behaviour of her cabinet ministers -- and she and those same cabinet ministers have unleashed unprecedented police power against productive, hard-working New Zealanders and their families.

And she might reflect too that If she's used the phrase "not the Labour Party's business" more liberally over the last nine years, she might have more support now.


* The answer to all of these is of course the very opposite of what Winston said was the case. When it came to the crunch, it was found Winston had no evidence to back up any of his self-serving tilts at the headlines, or to do what he said he would -- and now the emails have come out between Owen Glenn and his PR man, they seem top confirm Dail Jones's claim last year that a donation of around $100k was deposited into the NZ First back account in December last year.


  1. That's an outlandish conspiracy theory - Labour needs every supporter it can get. Cutting NZF loose substantially increases chances of Labour's return to the Opposition seats.

  2. Cutting NZF loose would be silly for Labour - so maybe Labour got their 100K loan from OG off their books, by shifting it to NZF in 11 instalments of course. NZF is tied more closely Labour - no finger prints in the NZF accounts leading directly to OG, NZF get the overspend millstone of their back before this election. All speculation of course, but that is all thats left when political funding is not transparent.

  3. Aha!

    So whoever spends more gets an inside line on being government? Is that the assumption here? Are NZers so shallow that some well placed expensive advertising is sufficient to garner the votes necessary to win an election? Seems the politicians think so and they have much experience with such matters...

    Given that most people are attempting to choose between socialism and socialism and yet another type of socialism or more socialism, it would seem that lots of media exposure is about the only way left for pollies to try and get some "front-of-mind" recall going.

  4. And that costs.

    It's a pretty poor business when the large parties have no policy and the public can be bought off with some media action, a bit of jingo-bingo, some vague promises about a better future tommorrow, a lot of talking about nothnig in particular, a lot of denials, lots of dissembling and two or three metric tonnes of colour-fast bullshit.

    You'd think people would have learned by now. There have been decades of this nonsense: National socialists, Labour socialists, ACT socialists, Green Communists, etc. etc. You'd think people would have had more than enough exposure to understand exactly what they are dealing with. But no. It seems that all what is required is cubic dollars to throw at the media and the result is people will vote exactly as previously.


  5. LGM

    That's all old news to me.

    PS: As low as they have fallen, I'm not sure ACT warrent being called socialists yet. Then again, maybe I'm just trying to fool myself into believing there is still some justice left in Parliament...

  6. LOL, "ACT socialists"

    Ever feel like you've backed yourself into a corner there LGM?

  7. Craig

    It's called possessing "specific knowledge". How about you try getting some for yourself? What you do is go speak to some of the principals of the party and enquire into their ideology. Now that does not mean talking about yourself. It means asking open questions and listening to their answers. Avoid trivialities and superficialities. Set about your enquiries seriously and intelligently. You'll find what you are told most illuminating.

    Aside from that, you have to admit that their voting record and actions are not good. You couldn't identify ACT as a consistently pro-freedom organisation.


  8. "Aside from that, you have to admit that their voting record and actions are not good. You couldn't identify ACT as a consistently pro-freedom organisation."

    Yeah right dimbulb.....


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.