Armstrong on Shearer’s hypocrisy

ŠĒ• NZ Herald

John Armstrong has excoriated the double standards of Labour leader David Shearer:

A straightforward case of glasshouses and the indiscriminate chucking of large rocks by Labour’s leader therein?

David Shearer took a firm line on John Banks’ recent troubles, demanding the Act leader be stood down as a minister while police investigate whether he breached local body electoral law.

That stance has come back to bite Shearer big-time in the form of Labour MP Shane Jones and the case of his four-year-old ministerial approval – despite officials’ advice – of citizenship for a Chinese millionaire who also happened to be a donor to the Labour Party.

The Prime Minister is accusing the Labour leader of hypocrisy. John Key is right. In failing to stand down Jones from his front bench, Shearer has not been 100 per cent consistent in applying the same standard to one of his MPs as he demanded should be applied to Banks.

John Armstrong forgets that John Banks was a private citizen whereas Shane Jones was actually a minister when he made the decisions.

He goes further:

That said, the conjunction of citizenship approvals, claims of having mates in Parliament and political donations make for a nasty smell which needs the application of political disinfectant. Jones could make life a lot easier for Shearer and things a lot clearer if he explained exactly why he approved Yan’s citizenship despite Yan being red-flagged by Interpol. Jones, however, is not commenting until Yan’s trial on fraud charges is over.

One thing that all political pundits and tragics should be aware of…that when Trevor Mallard is flinging around accusations about some sort of dodgy behaviour in National then he is covering from similar behaviour coming to light about one of Labour’s own. Labour attacked John Banks because they knew the Bill Liu case was coming up and they were hoping to bury their dodgy and shonky dealings under the political death, or so they hoped, of John Banks.

  • Rocky

    One point Larry didn’t ask Shearer to comment on was the testimony of the Immigration staffer who interviewed LUI and told him bluntly that with his record`he stood no chance of having his application approved to which LUI smiled and told him he had political friends and was 100% certain that his rsidency would be approved..Cunliffe and Jones proved him right.

  • Phar Lap

    Has Armstrong been born again.At last he has come of the ropes,finally he has seen the light.Even he wouldn’t want to be too close to a corrupt Lie-bour Party.

    • AnonWgtn

      No – Armstrong has not moved, just tilted slightly on this one.
      Watch him tomorrow – he will revert.

    • AnonWgtn

      No – Armstrong has not moved, just tilted slightly on this one.
      Watch him tomorrow – he will revert.

    • Russell Belding

      Armstrong has not changed IMO. A good analyst would have done his hoemwork and followed the money timeline. JohnA is not a good analyst.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

    Can’t see the point in this – there is no comparison – Banks denied knowing where the money came from, not that he got it – the rest was just “repeater” smoke screen.¬† Jones “case” where is the denial of receiving money – where is the failure to report? Huh???

    • Le Sphincter

      The evidence  from others shows he did know where it came from and importantly he instructed them on the ways to appear to get around the law.
      Banks only defence now is that he is senile

      • StacyMcNaught

        ¬†A whole comment from you without any weird french twists…you must have improved you english somewhat, excellent.

      • StacyMcNaught

        ¬†A whole comment from you without any weird french twists…you must have improved you english somewhat, excellent.

      • johnbronkhorst

        what evidence????It is ALL hearsay. Nobody can PROVE anything about Banks knew or didn’t know, unless he admits it himself. Hence the donations are annonamous if he says they are (thats the law). Jones, cunliffe, cosgrove etc however, there is DOCUMENTED evidence that they knew the labour party recieved money from this man, they KNEW that imigration had recommended against his citizenship and residency before that (due to false identities and criminal investigations in china) THEY then approved it with indecent haste (contrary to what would happen to ANYONE else, that did NOT give money to the labour party )…Spell it with me CORRUPTION!!!

      • Wayne

        It is my understanding John Banks has not broken any law and, was acting as a private citizen when he sought the donation. On the other hand Shane Jones was a Minister of the Crown when he approved Mr Liu’s citizenship. At best this is an abuse of power, or at worst, blatant fraud.

  • Markm

    Where’s the out rage over Labour party lackey with 2 names who organizes the fund raising function meets Liu ( or any of 4 names / passports) offers to get residency for $10k , takes said wanted criminal to meet Internal affairs minister Rick Barker , gains residency through SHane Jones.

    Nothing to see here the $10k and residency are unrelated as is the private citizenship function on Parliamentary property.
    I assume all citizenships are greeted with private functions in Parliament.

    Meanwhile Labour lackeys arrange interview with senile member of the public , known to support Government coalition partner , who makes a political donation.
    looking forward to the interviews with Labour and Green donors asking for their views on the world

    • Le Sphincter

      Crimp is entitled to his views, no matter how absurd, but the evidence is that Brash  was campaigning on those same views and gave feedback to confirm them.

    • AnonWgtn

      In which ever way you look at it it still smells very heavily of CORRUPTION.
      The police should get involved very soon.

  • Euan Rt

    I want to know if Liu is still a wanted man in China? What were/are his alleged crimes that Jones  decided could be overlooked Рother than of course multiple identities which of itself is a major red flag, I would have thought.

    • Joe Bloggs

      1999 – Fraudulently obtaining and using Chinese Identity documents relating to another identity including identity theft and obtaining and using two Chinese passports
      2005 – Fraud amounting to NZ$ 2.7 million – arrest warrant issued by the Chinese and an¬†international ‘red notice’ issued by¬†Interpol

      Perhaps Labour should be investigated under the Proceeds of Crimes Act 1991 for receiving stolen money…

      • Euan Rt

        What relationship do we have with interpol? Shouldn’t NZ immigration have detained him and said to interpol, “Here he is. We got him for you. Do we get a finders fee?”

  • Apolonia

    Hypocrisy is how Labour operate. Remember Goff and Hughes. Goff applied a different standard to Hughes than the standard he said should be applied to Richard Worth 

    • Nookin

      ¬†Goff applied a higher standard that overcame the cognative dissonance generated by the Worth/Hughes predicament. The standard that he applied was “power at all cost”

105%