Citizens and Ratepayers

PM may be grilled over Glenn donation – Prime Minister Helen Clark could be called to appear before Parliament’s privileges committee to discuss what she knew about a $100,000 donation to suspended Foreign Minister Winston Peters by expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn. In… [NZ Herald Politics]

The likelihood of Simon Power grilling anything other than toasted sandwiches before the committee is high. He really needs to pull his fist out of his arse and apply the blow-torch to Clark.

Farrar has some good points (see David, thats how you link to something you are talking about) that the committee, if they grow some balls, could raise with the Prime Minister, who it appears has her slimy mitts all over the Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode affair.

Well, my site has taken a hammering since posting the infamous secret scampi video. Now by way of a backrounder here is some filler information that tells you why this video is so explosive. It is from Hansard and the debate on Scampi. When you read this you can see why Winston Raymond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is going to be squirmingthat the video has now seen the light of day. You would also do well to read Question 5 from the other day as well.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.

Continuing on from my post on The Three Stages of Evil and the guest post on Narcissism it got me thinking, I was going to write a post on the ETS and link it to both of those then in my inbox from the same source as as the Narcissism post came this. I think it covers everything.

Guest Post: A. Nonymous (Psychologist)

Why, would a supposed advocate of people’s welfare and social well being, aka our supposed “Prime Minister” of New Zealand be so hell bent on the continued deconstruction and destruction of social norms?

Why would she want to push through, with basically weeks remaining of her term in office, a bill of absolutely no researched grounding yet, which offers the most serious and destructive implications to New Zealand, New Zealand’s inhabitants and threatens New Zealand’s economic viability?

You may well have to delve into psychologically to answer this latest Clark-ism. Consider this.

Does Helen Clark display the classic symptoms of an individual with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)?
If she does, you may ask….what does that have to do with the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the urgency Clark is pushing to get this bill of such immoral depravity through?

This post focuses on the question of Helen Clark’s moral substance as there are some real linkages between her continued demonstrative ‘behavior’ to what could be considered, at the very least, acts of treason against the crown and the people of NZ. This is with her willful execution of the mindless ETS and her doing so with the full knowledge of its damaging payload to our country!

What is a Narcissist?
Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or self purpose, a narcissist requires the constant attention and admiration of those around them, although they are very choosy about the people and institutions they will associate closely with.

Does that sound like Clark to you? Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode…hmmm!

They also believe that their problems are unique and can be appreciated only by other “special” high – status people.

Despite their perceived charm, the favourable first impression (false) they make, people with this NPD are rarely able to maintain a stable, long-term relationship. With their constant self-aggrandising and sly-pretentious manner, narcissistic persons are seldom receptive to the feelings of others. Yep, that’s scarily accurate!

They show a general lack of empathy, an inability or unwillingness to recognise and identify with your thoughts and needs.

Many often proclaim to be successful, popular, impressively knowledgeable, and articulate, yet are deeply troubled, dark and internally doubt-ridden as well.

“I sometimes feel I am a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister” – Helen Clark

Clark’s self-assessment and self-admiration reflects classic narcissism. If you encounter this personality type, a grasp of the underlying psychology can help you cope more effectively.

Lets explore the Ill-thinking of the narcissistic personality. As stated above, people with this personality disorder must constantly seek and pressure for outside support and approval. If they get that support and approval, they feel ‘complete’ and ‘powerful’. Without that support and approval, they feel deprived, exposed, vulnerable, angry, lonely and they lash out in one or many destructive ways.

Is Clark lashing out, at her own reluctant realisation of her demise, with the ETS?
What other agenda does Clark have behind the ETS farce?

Power, wealth or personal aim drive and bolster their fragmented self-image.

Does Clark have any NPD?
The American Psychological Association (APA) Warn:

This personality disorder may not be immediately obvious. The subtle ones won’t show their true colors until “deprived.”

Clark, it seems (and we hope) will be stripped of her position in office however, the decaying effects on democracy and our society have been on show as the net product of 9 years of her rotten colours in the NZ political system through her brand of corrosive and cancerous governmenting.

Caution: Others with NPD may actually pursue and cater to you, if you have something they want, such as money, or access to status. Clark will and uses any means, any means to lure or con you into another vote. She has stolen your money before.

Can you change them? Reality check: No. Even constructive criticism is experienced by them as an affront and is met with severe anger and a sense of betrayal. Sound familiar with Clark?

Placating only results in more demands (more taxes?), not a return of thoughtfulness and consideration. In fact, if you always excuse or forgive this self-absorption and give in to constant demands (and taxes), you are actually supporting and reinforcing their narcissistic needs and wants.
Sound familiar again?

She is lashing out with locally and internationally destructive actions. This is reflected through absurd behaviours and policies of utter lunacy.
Why though?
Clark, she has realised her time is up. True to the apparent form of a Narcissist, she is acting our her merciless retribution action against her opponents and the country.

Why again?
Clark and socialism needs to keep people and the nation in a ‘certain’ place.

She is introducing draconian policies to ensure that New Zealand suffers extreme hardship for at least the next 3 years, outside of the ‘control’ of her “government”, in order to punish her ‘opponents’ (the nation who elect her out and the incoming government). This is also to keep people in a prosperity-free place.

This is so that a call or a return to “socialism” is forced into by the nation, in 3 years, out of extreme disillusionment at the incoming government.

This is as Clark is ensuring that the would-be new government picks up a deep and diseased problem circumstance, as a net product of the years of Clarks rabid governmenting of which they (the New Government) simply, with such problem severity in terms of economic turbulence, will struggle to be able to solve them.

The ETS is a scheme of such problem severity it has the potential to send NZ into the dark ages and decay NZ to the status of a 3rd world country-very quickly.

Clark knows this.
Why do you think she is rushing this through with some urgency?
Its not that she cares for the environment!
This about power, control and corruption.
It’s about how much destruction she can create as she is being deprived of her self-decreed right to control and governance and the threat to her polluted-socialistic-communistic agenda.
It’s about setting up a breeding environment for her, as the Americans recently stated, brand of cockroach-like politics to re-emerge from the fall out.
Now, for those skeptics, does anyone doubt whether Clark is a Narcissist now? Are there now claims that she has ENPD (extreme Narcissist Personality Disorder).
What are the implications with ETS and Clark going forward?
The outlook of more time with Clark and her “Government” at the helm is gloomy. The ETS, we know, offers potentially paralysing impacts to all of us socially and economically (in business terms).

Act of Treason
The moral question, noting all of this, for this post remains. Are Hitler and Clark like-minded individuals?

The similarities are not hard to see. However, one could philosophically say that Hitler had a warmer character than Clark. Crazy? we know however, at least Hitler focused his evil on anyone outside his beloved Aryan race.

Clark however, with the ETS and it’s gloomy magnitude are actions of apocalyptic proportions yet, focused on her own country and people. Her destruction and the wanton carnage it will create are focused on threatening the social well being and welfare, in complete contradiction of her own supposed values, of NZ.

Surely, this is worse than Hitler. Are Clark’s acts the acts of Treason?
No. They are worse than that!

Treason is a label made in a retrospective sense over an act against the crown or country. It is then that due accountability is made and appropriate punishment is handed out.

Unfortunately, for us, at the mercy of Clark’s ETS action, whether she is a narcissist or not, by the time we get to retrospectively label Clark’s ETS as treason (or worse)….the implications of the ETS will have exploded into through the chaotic destruction of NZ’s business and social society.

By then, this “all consuming” mess will defer any of our focus away from the originating proponent and semblance of holding Clark to account for treason (or worse) will be lost in the ensuing holocaust. It will be all be simply too late by then. The only mitigation we have is to, as the APA recommend, focus all of our attentions on disassociation away from this individual using the election as our mechanism to rid ourselves of her corruption.

Failing that, we may need to consider calling Bainimarama from Fiji. He seems to have been successful in ousting corrupt governments!

CLARK-NARCISSISMS?

“I sometimes feel I am a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister” – Helen Clark’ self admiration.
“The role of government is whatever government defines it to be” – Helen Clark and totalitarianism
“I don’t Muck Rake” – Helen Clark
“He is casting a stain on the pacific” – Helen Clark

According to the APA, people with NPD display a chronic and pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy for the damage they commit to anyone or anything (our country) associated to them.

The following NPD profile characteristics have been established by the APA. We have tuned them as questions to test their validity and reasoning between Helen Clark and her continued highly anti-social (and questionable) behaviours.

The answers to these characteristic questions appear to hold a striking resemblance and familiarity to the same “cancerous” and “corrosive” behaviours of Clark which she is quick to suggest others hold. Wouldn’t you agree?
Lets have a look!
Clark’s NPD Profile Evaluation

• Is she Self-centered? 
• Are her needs are paramount and the needs of the country less?

Well, isn’t this what Clark and the ETS, Anti-smacking, the EFA and the decay of democracy all about?

• Does she display remorse for mistakes or misdeeds? – Can we relate that to her reaction to stealing $800,000 from the tax payer and her move with the retrospective law approval and the Electoral Finance Act?
• Is she unreliable, undependable, agenda driven yet, quick to suggest others are likewise? 
• Does she care about the consequences of her actions – Clearly not, that accounts for the Emissions Trading Scheme!
• Does she project her faults on to others? High blaming behavior; never her fault – sound familiar?
• Little if any conscience?
• Insensitive to needs and feelings of others – Emissions trading scheme? Anti-smacking hypocrisy?Has a front (persona) to impress and exploit others – This all sounds just like our Helen eh? 
• Low stress tolerance. Easy to anger and rage – Just talk to poor souls who choose (or are unfortunate) to work near and close to her?
• People are to be manipulated for her corrupt needs! – Why do you think that accounts for why Jeanette FitzSimmons has been so molly-coddled into naive (negligent) running with Clark’s corrupt ETS? 
• Does she rationalise easily, without thought? Sounds true!
• Does she twist situations to her gain at other’s expense – Well, you could start and identify many actions from anywhere in the last 9 years on this one eh!
• Pathological lying? – Well, no doubt really on that one eh! 
• Tremendous need to control situations, conversations, others – Clark just avoids them.
• No real or inconsistent values – Clark 101
• Often perceived as caring and understanding and uses this to manipulate time and time again?!
• Angry, mercurial, moods – Clark smile…Yeah Right! 
• A conversation controller. Must have the first and last word irrespective of it’s gibberish rating. 
• Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto and people with vile resentment with ability – Does “Cancerous and Corrosive” ring a bell?….recent pops at John Key.
• Secret or no real personal life.
• Thrives on chaos, always warring and for no reason – We have seen the results of her recent disruptive and meddling acts just last week with Fiji!
• Repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations – Clark mentioned she would be a careful custodian of our money – however, she has proven to nothing but negligent with our tax payer money and Utterly Corrupt!

Well, one can’t really disagree with those last charecterisations can they?

Unilateral condition of, “I’m OK and justified so I don’t need to hear your ideas”. Always feels misunderstood. You feel utterly miserable with this person. A narcissist drains you – Interesting, there seems to have been a long trail and history of people who have fallen to the curse of Clark!

She, like a narcissist, does not listen because she simply does not care – yep, spot on with that one APA! We recall the prime ministers deeply caring and prophetic “Diddum’s” statement! Yet…..

Lacks ability to see how she comes across and impacts others.Highly contradictory. Never her fault. Fails to front up. – hmmm, she does seem to be frequently absent from Parliament when troubles are rife and needing dealing with. What about the Fiji hypocrisy!?

There are actually another apt 40 characterisations that could easily profile however, the bottom line is that Narcissists are dangerous folk.

The APA reckon when you realise you are associated with a Narcissist, it’s time for one (our nation) to urgently examine the pay-off or importance of it’s relationship with this person.

Whether Clark is or isn’t a Narcissist, she has proven to be an extremely dangerous constituent in control of our fine country.

Why the ETS?

Unfortunately, before we get to express the results of our examine our relationship with Clark through the election (which we still have no date for) she lashes out!

With all the parliamentary shenanigins over the past week in shutting down Rodney Hide from speaking the truth in a chamber that is supposed to uphold the truth I thought I would look a little deeper into this sub-judice horseshit that Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is relying on to silence Rodney.

In doing my homework I came across an interesting piece by no less a media illuminati and leftist apologist than Russell Brown. All the same players are in this piece including the defender of scum Peter Williams QC and WRP, 63, LMPONFA vicariously through the shenanigins of Tuku Morgan.

In fact the parallels between this case and the case currently before us are interesting. Read and enjoy and then ask yourself this question, What does Russell Brown think about all this now?

This week’s staggering installment began when Tuku’s lawyer, Chris Reid, began calling the two main TV networks offering an exclusive interview with his client, an elected representative of the people – to which the response of any sane journalist must surely be “Can you just hold on a minute while I get my tape recorder?” While TVNZ – which has been prepared to whip out the chequebook twice recently – hummed and haaed, TV3′s John Campbell decided the real story was the MP for sale, and recorded a conversation where Reid pretty quickly established that $20,000 was the minimum sum for which his client would open his mouth.

This course of action will have come as little suprise to anyone who heard the self-righteous barbs about chequebook journalism dished out by TV3 staff at the Qantas Media Awards last Friday. Yet Morgan and his lawyers days later went and offered 3 National News a chance to not so much take the moral high ground as go up and pitch a bloody great big tent there.

Yet Peter Williams, QC, who represents Morgan and retained Reid, maintained the day after the story broke that young Mr Campell had lacked maturity, and had dragged down the standards of his profession by breaking a confidence. I don’t think so. It is Peter Williams who risks collateral damage if he keeps on keeping such company.

We all heard the tape, and Reid was most of the way through his wheeling and dealing before he thought to say it was off the record. But more importantly, I don’t believe being a journalist means being obliged to play along with greedy little games of this sort. Why should Campbell have heard out this extraordinary plan and then ignored it as news, simply because the protagonists desired it that way?

So what was so bad about Tuku asking to see the money? This: He is an elected representative of the people and as such is the subject of quite a few privileges. He is also accountable to the public – that’s one of the hard things about the job. And an MP is especially accountable when he or she has a bit of a whoopsie. Yet Morgan has spent months refusing to explain himself on the basis that his actions at Aotearoa Television and since are “sub judice” because he has taken a million dollar defamation action against Labour’s Trevor Mallard.

Most legal opinion tended to the view that this was preposterous, and now, Morgan himself seems prepared to ignore it – for a large fee. It now appears that Reid even sought to flog off the Tuku story to Woman’s Day – on an exclusive basis, of course. Can we look forward then, to more politicians taking bids for their time?

Morgan, eventually, did turn up for an interview – on the Holmes show, where he was dragged kicking and screaming into the most grudging, qualified apology imaginable to the young people he let down at ATN. He palpably did not believe he had anything to apologise for. Not the huge directors’ fees, not the trips to Europe, not the spending sprees, not the financial waste dump he helped to create and not the bloody boxer shorts. And of course, there was never a hint of contrition over the attempt to sell himself off. As David Lange pronounced on the other channel minutes before, Mr Morgan is “a liar, terminally greedy and suicidally arrogant”.

But Morgan believes he is being pursued not for his words and deeds, but for the colour of his skin. The press, he believes, is picking on him because he’s Maori. Well I’m sorry pal, but I won’t be called a racist just so you can go on deluding yourself. And, I might add, lying to your leader.

No amount of fudging gets around the fact that Morgan lied to Winston Peters over his cash for questions project, causing Peters in turn to lie to the press. He also lied to his caucus – and at the time of writing, only John Delamere and the awful Rana Watai had indicated they were happy to forgive. That may have left Morgan very vulnerable when the Serious Fraud Office delivers its report on ATN.

Hmmmm…Russell, What say you now on the WRP, 63, LMPONFA affair?

It seems that Winston Raymond Peters, 63, Member of Parliament of no fixed abode is a pthological and compulsive liar. When faced with a question it appears that his first response is to lie.

The dogged Phil Kitchin, following his usual method of destruction of liars has delivered yet another cut in his death of a 1000 cuts political assassination of WRP, 63, MOPONFA.

Mr Peters has told Parliament that he “had to carry the can” for legal expenses incurred – but The Dominion Post has obtained copies of bills that show taxpayers paid nearly $24,000. The bills show Mr Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry, was paid the money by Parliamentary Service for Winebox legal advice.

The Winebox papers detailed a complex Cook Islands tax scheme used by prominent New Zealand businessmen to reduce tax liabilities.

The bills were paid by the taxpayer-funded agency, which administers parliamentary business, eight months after a commission of inquiry was set up to investigate Mr Peters’ allegations that the Serious Fraud Office and Inland Revenue acted unlawfully or incompetently.

They are for services that included “researching into the Winebox”, obtaining copies of transcripts of evidence, “consulting re media briefing of the legal position of Sir Ronald Davison [the counsel assisting the Winebox inquiry]“, “preparation of media package in respect of events in the House of Representatives”, and advice on a Winebox select committee.

Once again WRP, 63, MOPONFA has been caught out in a lie and once again it is before the parliament that he told the lie. hen again in the mind of a man who can’t lie straight in bed he probably thinks that parliamentary services money is his personal bank account to raid at will.

Remember the prick still hasn’t paid back the money he nicked at the last election. Brian Henry is also in a spot of bother as his testimony before the Privileges Committee is now suspect as it conflicts with the direct evidence that Phil Kitchin has uncovered.

No doubt more allegations will arise. Helen Clark will have to sack WRP, 63, MOPONFA as the damage is mounting against her and the Labour Party through her determined yet strange unflinching support of WRP, 63, MOPONFA.

Questions for Oral Answer – Questions to Ministers
[Volume:645;Page:14463] 21 February 2008
Questions to Ministers

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether her coalition partner New Zealand First has advised her whether Owen Glenn is the mystery anonymous donor who placed nearly $100,000 in the New Zealand First bank account last year, and if not, does she intend to ask New Zealand First in order to find out whether a donation may have affected Winston Peters’ consideration of who to appoint as consul to Monaco?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot advise that, nor can I advise the House of any of the anonymous donors to the National Party

We now know that this answer in Hansard was demonstrably false.

Clark and therefore Cullen has known all along about Owen Glenn’s donation. It is simply not believable that Winston hasn’t known anything about this and not believable that Clark didn’t know anything either until today.

Clark is stuffed, she is a liar too.

This spin about due process in the privileges committee is pure spin. Lianne Dalziel and Panty Slut-boy got no such defense from Clark. She has NOT taken the word of those ministers, or Dover Samuels or any other minister she sacked but all of a sudden she must suddenly accept the word of Peters over anyone else including Owen Glenn.  Her hypocrisy is huge. To watch Michael Cullen continue to obfuscate and defend both the Prime Minister and Winston Raymond Peters, 63, Member of Parliament of no fixed abode in the parliament is scandalous. Not only that Michael Cullen essentially called Owen Glenn a liar and confused as well today.

I hope and pray that Labour conrtinues to defend WRP, 63, MOPONFA to the hilt then this election election will be fought totally upon honesty, integrity in politics and the corruption of WRP, 63, MOPONFA and the corruption of Helen Clark in tacitly approving that corruption through the continued service of WRP, 63, MOPONFA in her ministry.

Glenn clear winner in the credibility stakes – The Herald yesterday asked people on the streets of central Tauranga for their opinion on billionaire Owen Glenn’s statement that New Zealand First leader Winston Peters asked him for a $100,000 donation, and Mr Peters’ denial to… [NZ Herald Politics]

The Herald has a selection of public opions about who we believe. The guy who gave the $100,000 or the guy he gave it to.

It seems we believe the guy who gave the money, now there’s a surprise.

Ok things are a little confusing so let me get this straight.

There was a $100,000 given to Winston Raymond Peters, 63, Member of Parliament of No Fixed Abode that he didn’t know about until his lawyer told him about it despite asking for it in person and thanking the donor for his support after it was given but before he said he knew about it when he said never had never got even 1c from the donor and the photographs showing him at a place he said he never attended and the letter written by the donor are all fakes and we are all dreaming….oh…and….there is a conspiracy.

I’m no Doctor but I think there are several conditions known to cause such incredible hallucinations most of which require compulsory incarceration for the protection of the individual and others.

ACT MP Heather Roy has termed today as 3D Politics, Delay, Deny, and Denigrate. She couldn’t be closer to the truth as Labour cynically manipulated the Standing Orders so that they could implement phase one or the first D, Delay.

In 9 years under Labour, there have only been 5 ministerial statements about matters of significant national importance – relating to issues such as 9/11 and Kiwi troops killed in East Timor. Not for spending over a billion dollars on Michael’s Trainset, not for anything else and today, the day when Winston Raymond Peters, 63, Member of parliament of no fixed abode is set to get yet another grilling in the house over his obfuscations, lies, bribes and corruption we get a a ministerial statement and an hour of waffle about how Howard Broad has decided, sort to maybe implement Tasers and that he has written a letter to the MP’s to tell them.That’s it!

Helen Clark has failed on her 1999 promise to introduce new standards of honesty and transperancy into New Zealand politics. She has in fact bebased it and corrupted New Zealand politics and the civil service.

There can no longer any doubt that Police Commissioner Howard Broad has been bought and paid for by Helen Elizabeth Clark and her Labour party. Today was the final proof of that corruption.

Glenn contradicts Peters in donation row – Expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn says New Zealand First leader Winston Peters personally solicited a $100,000 donation and then thanked him for it. [3 News Politics]

The knives are out and Winston Raymond Peters, 63, Member of parliament of No Fixed abode is dead meat.

Duncan Garner pulls no punches.

If Winston was a cat then surely he’s just been run over in the middle of the road – and his ninth life is over – courtesy of the car being driven by that billionaire Owen Glenn.

Yes, Glenn has shown Peters’ version of events over the $100,000 donation to be full of holes at best – and a bunch of contradictions and half truths at worst.

Peters must now be sacked. Clark should ring him up and tell him if he doesn’t walk, then she’s sacking him – but it feels like she won’t do that just yet. She needs his support to pass the Emissions Trading Scheme.

So Clark it seems will buy herself more time – and wait for the official Privileges Committee report before she acts. She wants the Privileges Committee to push Peters so she doesn’t have to.

That’s weak – if this was a Labour Party Minister Clark would have cut his or her throat weeks ago – and if not – then most definitely today.

The Herald has also just posted a video on its site that will make Helen Clark’s skin crawl as she watches again her justification and defense of the most corrupt politiican to ever grace our parliamentary chamber.