A Tawdry Spectacle
The censure of Winston Peters was the tawdriest of spectacles.
The level of discomfort in the Greens and the Maori Party can only be imagined.
To find yourself patted on the head by the right-wing news media for playing the role assigned to you so well.
To hear yourself praised by National and Act for your sturdy ”independence” and staunch “neutrality” (while they laugh in their sleeves at your naivete, and noisily celebrate the triumph of their own utterly ruthless partisanship).
To be cast as the little heroes of some weird parliamentary glad-game played only in the girlish imagination of that doyenne of political Polyannaism, Therese Arseneau.
How could your flesh fail to creep?
The greatest shame belongs to the Maori Party. To watch it cast the crucial vote in favour of the ritual punishment and humiliation of one of the very few Maori to achieve political success beyond the artificial shelter of the Maori seats was bad enough, but to see this accomplished on the floor of the House of Representatives - the very same legislature which, since 1854, has constituted the prime instrument for dispossessing the Maori of their lands, forests and fisheries, was nothing less than grotesque.
If this is the “Tikanga Maori House” that Professor Winiata is talking about, then the Pakeha Establishment can breathe easy. When it comes to putting the boot into one of their own people - the Maori Party can be relied upon to do its duty.
For the Greens it was simply a case of being revenged upon the man who had kept them out of the Cabinet in 2005.
Young Mr Norman may furrow his brow, and give every impression of being a sort of latter-day Henry Fonda, wrestling with the evidence in a jury-room filled with prejudice and hate, but the brute fact remains that he voted to convict a person for doing something that was not prohibited when he did it.
Retrospective justice, Russel? From the party that made restorative justice a key element of its programme?
Where were Rod and Nandor when we needed them?
The Privileges Committee is a political court. An inquisitorial tribunal that in all but the most egregious of cases cannot help but deliberate on the basis of partisan advantage.
Winston Peters was not judged by his peers, he was found guilty by his enemies, in a political climate heated to boiling point by a news media determined to claim its own share of the vengeance on offer.
What Winston had sent around, came back around to hit him with the force of a sledgehammer.
He never stood a chance.
Related Posts
Tags: Maori Party, Privileges, Winston Peters
September 24th, 2008 at 6:50 am
So the Maori party should ignore his lies because he is Maori?
I have a bit of trouble with your worldview where anything goes if it is ‘good’ for the cause.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:12 am
What a lot of crap. This article simply amazes me! I had some respect for you previously.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Colin, probably best if you outline why you think “What a lot of crap.” rather than attacking Chris. We will all get along much better.
Bryan Spondre
Blog Producer
September 24th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Cheese and crackers, why don’t you go for the trifecta of offensively dumb metaphors and compare Winston’s critics to concentration camp guards — you’ve already done pack rapists and racist lynch mobs. Still the headline deserves some kind of award for truth in advertising: “a tawdry spectacle” is an apt description for your ghastly defences of Winston.
(And even Michael Cullen wasn’t willing to defend Peters’ crass — or utterly ignorant, you can’t always tell where Peters is concerned — comparison of the process he went through to Zimbabwe. One sotto voice cheer for Mike on that.)
Chris, I really want to err on the side of generosity and assume you’re just trolling for traffic by OTT rhetoric you don’t actually believe in, but know will get a reaction. But I’m finding it increasingly difficult. It’s just sickening watching Peters — and his proxies in the media, including you — trying to wrap himself in the moral authority of others who actually deserve our sorrow and our pity.
I don’t expect anything better from Peters; but I used to expect a little more from you.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I’m sick of hearing about Peters. Can we talk about something else now, please?,,,, the free trade deal, the IT debate,health policy, environmental issues, abortion law…. lots to discuss.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Bryan, I think it is obvious why this is “a lot of crap”. Everyone else can see why.
Firstly, this case has nothing to do with Tikanga Maori.
Also Chris , if the committee is a court, why haven’t you criticised Cullen and Clark for contempt?
Not to do so would indicated that you are either more biased that those you criticise for bias or purposefully inflammatory. I’ll take the former.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Chris
The contrast between this thread and your gotcha post is just stunning.
On one hand - guilty till proven innocent and on the other hand innocent because he said so (oh and because he is part of the Labour First govt). You have done a great job of explaining Labour-led justice - it’s what we say it is.
This thread is going to look like the partisan gibberish it is if the SFO and/or the Police lay charges.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Ha Ha
Brilliant stuff……… you can tell Michael Cullen to point the gun away from your head now.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
At what point do you draw the line Chris?, at what point do you say “thats enough”?
Or is it a case of anything goes just as long as Labour are returned to power.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Winston hanged himself.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I’m shocked that you could suggest that the late Rod Donald, in my opinion one of the few politicians with integrity we’ve had, would be willing to forgo his principles to support Labour First.
Is this your way of increasing the numbers in the pro-Winston camp? Reminds me a bit of all the dead people who vote in Zimbabwe.
Also, have you actually asked Nandor his opinion? Or are you just ascribing to him a willingness to buy Winstons tawdry lies?
September 24th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Don’t worry, Bryan - I won’t post again.
I think anyone who has followed the process and have seen so much contempt of Parilament (By WP) would know why the article is a “lot of crap”. Having to articulate it is beneath me, and, as mentioned, I have lost all respect for Chris (and I had plenty before).
September 24th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I have to agree that the PC is NOT the place that should hear such matters They should be heard by a Council of Citizens drawn up in the same way as a jury
Although the jury system aint perfect its a bloody sight better than the kangaroo court that is the PC
\
The PC is self interested and conflicted It displays none of the principles of good governance.
it is a crock of shit made up of shitheads
September 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Fair enough Colin.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Chris, I get it, you’re making a joke right? You’re not being serious obviously, you’re selflessly making this into something so out there that anyone reading it has to burst out laughing. Thanks mate, I really needed a good laugh about now too.
gd - could you perhaps find other ways to express yourself? It may be that lacing your conversation with expletives is the norm in your house, and I’m fine with that, but could you confine it to your house please?
September 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Chris said…
When it comes to putting the boot into one of their own people - the Maori Party can be relied upon to do its duty.
Chris, our Parliamentarians were not elected to cover for or protect a guilty colleague by standing shoulder with him/her, simply because they:
- belong to the same race (Maori, Polynesian, Chinese, Europeans, etc…)
- are childhood friendships
- come from the same district
- are related by blood
- are indirectly related by marriage and so forth,…
They’re there to properly conduct their duties/oaths to the people & uphold the law and I can’t believe that you’re blind to that fact. This is why Don Brash was right in his Orewa speech, one law for all. The law should be color-blind and not be racist or discriminatory. The Maori Party shouldn’t let Winston off the hook simply because they belong to the same phanau.
Burt said…
On one hand - guilty till proven innocent and on the other hand innocent because he said so .
Yeah Burt. Chris is self-contradicting whether he is aware of it or not. I bet he is knowingly aware of it and choose to make a noise on this issue for the sake of it. Logicians call it, Law of excluded middle (LOEM), meaning that one agrees & disagrees with (or accepts & rejects) a proportion simultaneously at a single time-point , which is in itself is a contradiction.
Chris, may I nominate your name to the Nobel committee to be considered for an award of a Nobel Prize for your clear violation of the LOEM ?
September 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Chris now writes satire. The only logical explanation.
Unless Chris reflects the loss of perspective we see in Clark and Cullen. I hope Flavell and Norman are taking note, and un-hitch their wagons from this train-wreck of a Government.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am
If wanting to see Winston Peters held to account makes me part of some insane lynch mob then hand me a pitchfork and call me Bubba.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:09 am
And I sure didn’t notice Labour’s Maori caucus showing an excess of bro-mantic solidarity with Winston and the so-called ‘Tight Five’ ten years back, ay Chris? On reflection, I don’t know what’s more obnoxious: your lectures on how the Maori Party should have shown solidarity with Winston, or the utterly hypocrisy you’ve shown. I recall you scolding Margaret Mutu for not distancing herself from the cuzzie bros quickly or firmly enough for your taste.
Damned if you, damned if you don’t… And with friends like you Winston doesn’t need to make up any more enemies.
Bubba — I’m all out of pitchforks, but burning crosses are so chic this season. (Hey, just running with Mr Trotter’s harmless metaphor.)
September 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Well, I started to read this and wondered if Id fallen into that “Alice in wonderland” place that Winston talks about. What gibberish.
However theres one thing I will agree with - there is no such thing as ‘Maori’ as in pan-maori. Its all tribal.
I am more than a little surprised that the maori party have performed as well as they have, but give it a few more members and the departure of tariana in 3 years and I wouldnt be surprised to see the the Mere’s out and a bit of tribal blood being spilt. Maori tribes have never co-operated in a serious fashion before and theres no reason to think they will in the future.
And the treaty is between tribes and the crown - not maori and the crown.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
While they laugh in their sleeves at your naivete, and noisily celebrate the triumph of their own utterly ruthless partisanship.
Reminds me of the way Labour trod all over the Greens in previous ‘coalition’ deals, which I’m sure you would have found “principled”. And trying to play the emotive card of Rod Donald is pathetic Trotter. You’re sinking further into the mire.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
How does it feel to be shown up for the fool you are Chris?
David
Hows does it feel to be put on the naughty step ?
Bryan Spondre
Blog Producer
September 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Capn Oats: you are running the risk of being ‘keel hauled’.
Bryan Spondre
Blog Producer
September 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
What a despicable, pompous, and self-righteous thing to say, Chris.
I beg your pardon? NZ First was required to declare donations from the Spencer Trust to NZ First. It didn’t. It broke the law. This wasn’t the point the Privileges Committee convicted on: Winston Peters was required, by law at the time, to declare the payment from Owen Glenn as a gift. He broke Parliament’s rules.
It is clear to me, Chris, that you have scant regard for the rule of law. I know that you call yourself a social democrat, but yet again you appear to be swayed by the socialist part of that equation, and not the democratic part. I suggest to you that you just can’t be a social democrat if you don’t have respect for the rule of law.
Winston Peters broke the rules. You have consistently defended him for doing this, using all sorts of bizarre justifications such as it is the media’s fault, others break rules too, and the most pernicious of all, which is the real reason although you don’t confess to it: he should be let off because it would otherwise be politically damaging to the Labour Party. Peters ran a smear campaign against the media, defaming many of them individually in the process. He made a mockery of parliamentary processes designed to provide political accountability. He attacked independent law enforcement agencies, the public confidence in which are necessary for them to uphold the law. He campaigned against the right of the Privileges Committee to hear evidence that went to the heart of corruption-free politics.
In all of these actions, he was supported by the Labour Party, and cheered on by you.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I cant believe you are STILL defending him! Newsflash Chris … Winston Peters lied to parliament and lied to the public of New Zealand.
After spending years stamping the moral high ground over anonomous trust accounts and big business funding of political parties, he has been found to have done all of the above.
To see all the evidence of the emails, phone calls, faxes, signed declarations … you still defend him. The ONLY party to oppose the findings were the Labour party .. gee what a supprise! Even the independant MP’s voted against him.
He lied! he should be sacked, Helen Clark has no spine. She is as corrupt as he is over this issue.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Dont be too harsh Andrew Poor Chris and the other lefties are still trying to come to grips with the fact that all the parties other than the Socialists and NZ1 voted that Luigi was a liar
They just cant get it Every party got it so wrong And after 8 November they will be trying work out why everyone who didnt vote for the Left got it so wrong.
You see in their little world everyone is out of step who doesnt agree with them
September 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I was just reading an article written by Gordon Campbell on the history of bad blood between Peters and the SFO. Lest we forget that political enemies have very long memories when it comes to vendettas and I for one can smell the deathly stench of the vampire Michael Fay all over this episode.Remember there was really only one person who ultimately called Michael Fay and David Richwhite to account for raping the public of New Zealand with the BNZ in the late eighties.That greedy ,lustful,hateful former Catholic schoolboy Fay was ultimately called to account by just one man,Peters,at a personal financial cost to himself. Little wonder he’s always on the scrounge for donations! Former SFO boss Chas Sturts cocktail party comments said it all then: We cant offend our friends in Wellington now,can we? referring to Fay.David Bradshaw ,the next SFO boss decided not to press ahead with the prosecution in a prima facie case against Magnum Corp after Sturt had to step down after having been shown to having “misled Parliament” (any bells ringing? about the extent of the Winebox investigation.So I ask along with Gordon Campbell, Is the SFO settling old scores and therefore a de facto crny of the ACT and National parties? Remember also that next week was to to have seen a bill introduced into Parliament with the aim of abolishing the SFO and integrating its office into an arm of the NZ Police Force.This bill could now be stymied by the SFO s “condemnation” and possibly excluding Peters and NZ First from the political process which would have ensured the Bill’s passing. The result?: the SFO saves its own butt and Peters enemies extract their revenge.Ive voted Labour through 8 elections but I will be giving my Party vote to a man who, for all his little proclivities, like his vanity and liking for some of the finer things in life,has more than made up for these negatives by being a true moral compass for mainstream New Zealanders Maori and Pakeha alike, and I also agree with Chris Trotter when he says that the fallout for the Maori Party for voting to censure Peters yesterday will be much greater than they might have possibly anticipated.Peters may be down once again, but it would be a brave commentator who would write him just yet. We need him ,we really do, unless there are others with his courage who are ready to stand up there and take his place.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Amen to that … to imagine that as far as Winston was concerned … “all this could be sorted out in 3 minutes”
Well all i have to say is your 3 minutes are up Winston. It’s finally all cleared up now. YOU LIED.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Peters,at a personal financial cost to himself”
Really?!?!? Are you sure he footed the bill? Wouldn’t be the first time i have heard this statement in the last few weeks only to find out later that it was a bunch of crap.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
OMG! So Opus Dei is in on the rape-lynching of Winston Peters as well? Who would have though. Now, come back when you’re managed to work in the Jews, Freemasons, the gay mafia who control the arts, television/movie and fashion industries, and the Flying Spaghetti monster.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Craig,
as a devout Pastafarian I take exception to your blaspheming the Noodly Master
Bryan
September 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I don’t think any of the main players in this issue comes out of it looking that good. It all seems to have been a pretty tawdry affair IMO The right and it’s tame MSM targeted Peters as a way to discredit the government, rather than just stand on their own (the right wing) policies. Peters was a pretty easy target and didn’t help his cause much. OTOH, I think other parties (including the Nats) have some murky funding arrangements in the recent past - just more clever at negotiating them.
I’m not that impressed with the PC - much like the police investigating itself. The PC is too politicized.
I watched the debate in parliament yesterday. I thought Norman and the Maori guy sounded like they did make an honest attempt to make a fair judgment. However, in such a politicized environment, I’m not sure how totally unbiased anyone could be, even with the best intentions.
Consider what the response from a lot of media would have been if the small parties like Maori & Greens, had supported Labour & NZ First. They would have been branded as Labour lackeys. At this point they want to be seen as independent before they go into any post-election negotiations.
I noticed that the Maori guy and Norman made a point of emphasising how they came to their decisions independently. The Maori guy emphasised the whole Maori approach taken. Norman emphasized that he came to the issue as a newby in parliament and an outsider on the issue. This is not to say that they didn’t make an independent decision, but they were at pains to stress their independence, and I think for political reasons.
I’m not very impressed with Therese Arseneau either. Her analysis does come across as pretty superficial, and focused on what the public MAY be thinking rather than giving an in-depth political critique. But I’m also not that keen on the Pollyanna metaphor - too gendered.
I do like the critiques coming from that guy at Scoop - Gordon Campbell. I was pleased to hear him on Nat Radio this morning, talking on this issue. A far more in-depth analysis from him than the other guy (James was it?), even tho James and the interviewer did their best to squeeze out Campbell’s analysis. But Campbell’s more into a nuanced analysis than the easy sound-bites.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
One post and on the naughty step, geez that sucks.
Yep we are tough around here. It’s called “The Terminator” approach
You can head back into the playground as you long you knock off the personal attacks.
Bryan Spondre
Blog Producer
September 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Carol:
“The Maori guy” has a name — do you think you’d care to do some rudimentary research and show him some basic courtesy before attacking others for superficiality? Just a thought. Parliament, for all its flaws, does have an excellent website containing Hansard transcripts of debates and information on the composition of select committees, party caucuses etc.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
My apologies, I had spent the last several hours reading various blogs elsewhere and landed on Chris’s tirade, and seriously it pushed me over the edge! I swear I fear for this country if people believe any of the stuff Labour stalwarts are putting out over WP etc…I’m beginning to feel that I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole and can’t get back out
September 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I disagree Carol, I think those who worked to uncover Winston’s lies have come out of this issue looking great! While those who have stood by Winston, lying and trying to muddy the issue have come out of it looking like crooks.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Phillip, why don’t you just give up the ruse and admit you are Frank Perry?
September 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And if the SFO finds against Mr Peters will that be tawdry also? Really, it significantly demeans parliamentary integrity to suggest that the evidence submitted to the PC and to the house was disregarded and the finding was purely vindictive. Take a deep breath and say it: it was a mistake to appoint Winstone to a senior post and a greater mistake to rely on him to tell the truth. Ditch him now and win a few votes back, otherwise we are looking at National governing alone.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Meanwhile, if you’re looking for tawdry spectacles you can’t really go past
this:
Ewww….
September 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Today’s bombshell has just been made by Pita Sharples. Check out Stuff. Not looking good for Labour and NZF. John Key’s shares will not be the news tonight.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Gosh you gotta be quick to get in with the boot these days…
Chris… Did you ask anyone in either the Maori Party or the Greens whether they felt bad? I think you might be “projecting” (what’s that faint echo I hear…?) your unhappiness at the process on to others. I have never met Hone Harawira but his actions have never struck me as being that of a lap dog.
Or maybe they don’t like being pressured to do what they’re told.
Perhaps the Greens sneaked away momentarily to taste from a different bowl for a change. Dogs often do that…
September 24th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Labour better release bombshell No2 today, to try and knock this latest sorry tale off the 6 o’clock news.
September 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
If Chris’ analysis is correct, then there really isn’t any need for the Privileges Committee to exist. They are incapable of subscribing to the “due process” that Helen Clark insisted on for Winston Peters (i.e. through the Privileges Committee), and clearly the Prime Minister believes she is in a much better position to judge truth and veracity with respect to a complaint lodged with the PC (despite refusing to read the report, which contained all of the evidence).
Helen Clark already made clear well before the PC’s report that she was going to ignore its findings, softening everybody up for a new threshhold of “devastating” revelations against Peters. So here we have a Prime Minister who insists on due process as a delaying tactic, and then when due process has carried out its verdict, says the findings were wrong anyway.
It was an amusing attempt to defend the indefensible Chris. Yet again you have managed to wind up your readers, as one of the most liberal (self-proclaimed) commentators yet again acting as the defence for the most illiberal politician in New Zealand history.
September 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Winston is a complete fool, either that or he thinks the public are complete fools.
See stuff: Peters says Maori Party betrayed him
Is this the same man who voted to retrospectively apply new rules about spending?
So it’s OK when it’s good for Winston Peters to actually use the unconventional powers of parliament to protect himself but it’s not OK to enforce existing rules some time after they have been breached.
What a muppet.
September 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Barry Soper says it was Horomia who put the heat of Sharples Betcha it was Clark/Cullen who ordered Horomia to “go sort out those hori mates of your Tell them that unless that vote for Winston their dead meat”
More of the end jusifies the means no matter what the means eh Chris
Real ethical moral and principled mates of yours aint they
Well you know the old saying You will be known by the company you keep
It just keeps on getting better and better day by day
September 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Once again Chris I refuse to believe that your blog is not a comedy act.
Even the staunchest of left leaning people could not see who was telling the truth regarding the Peters/Owen donations saga.
To say the Maori party has betrayed Winston even tho the weight of evidence firmly put him as a liar of the worst kind is insulting to the mana and intelligence of Maori.
If brown sticks with brown through thick and thin, what hope have we got to make this country work with all colours of people.
Shame on you Chris.
With the new revelations regarding the attempt to coerce the Maori party by probably Mr.Horomia it is the silver bullet the New Zealand public have looked for to totally reject the most corrupt government this country has ever seen.
Goodbye Helen and Michael
Hello John Key and Rodney
September 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Chris, I think about dominant regimes, and they end up collapsing. Think the Roman Empire. Think the Warsaw Pact 1989. To a less extreme extent, but for the same reason, think Muldoon 1984. Think Labour 1990.
The reason they collapse is not because the inherent power of their opponents, but because the regimes lose the moral connection to their core supporters. The leaders become so determined to retain power that they will excuse themselves any act–even cavorting with the enemy–to maintain their position. They will forego the rule of law. They will introduce legislation to screw the scrum for their own benefit.
Those are all temptations for any long-standing regime. It is the job of the core supporters, from within, to remind the regime leaders, of the hazards and inevitable result–a systematic collapse–if the leadership gives in to their power-hungry temptations.
Except instead of holding Helen Clark’s government’s excesses to account, Chris, you go about justifying them and excusing them. By acting as an apologist, you really only make it much harder for Labour to quickly regain its supporters again.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
tim Tim how dare you You must know you are not allowed to compare the CLARK/PETERS governemnt to any other regime of history
the CLARK/PETERS government is unique quite unique
It would be a travesty of justice to try and compare the …………. regime or the ……… regime or even the ……………… regime to the CLARK/PETERS government
…………. courtesy of the Chief Blog Censor for Commissar Trotter
September 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
To Craig Re :That greedy, lustful, hateful, Catholic schoolboy Fay…… actually I did go a bit feral in the comment and I did try to edit it out but there you go..the beauty /tragedy of live internet but such is my contempt for the guy . Did you know that he and David Richwhite made nearly half a BILLION dollars from the sale of the BNZ and THAT is the rape Im referring to,OF US the NZ public when we had to bail it out …it wasnt a reference to Peters at all…and some of my best friends are gay, Catholic,Jewish,work in the fashion industry,although not necessarily in that order.I will however leave out the Freemasons …. and the Flying Spaghetti monster.
To Andrew :Re At a personal cost to himself(Peters) Yeah, sure. I’m not really saying he would have footed the bill himself,just that there would obviously not be stacks of wealthy patrons follwing him around offering gratuities the way I’m sure Fay and others do as much as they draw breath throughout the day.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Burt - let’s deal with this ridiculous “retrospective” claim by Peters and Cullen. What the Privileges Committee decided was that when Parliament established the Register of Pecuniary Interests it intended that MPs be required to make an “honest attempt” to declare relevant information on it. Peters and Cullen, idiotically, argue that this is wrong - that when Parliament established the register it did not intend that MPs should be required to make an “honest attempt” to comply with its requirements. They say that, what is a mere matter of interpretation, that MPs should make an “honest attempt” is retrospective and outrageous. That says a lot about them and the crooked Axis of which they are senior members.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
The first point to make to all of you outraged commentators out there (your names are, of course, quite familiar to me by now) is that, for the purposes of this particular posting, WPs guilt or innocence was largely irrelevant.
What I was commenting on was the brute political realities that overtake any party when it momentarily forgets that Parliament is a place where loyalty and solidarity are the only currencies that count.
The Maori Party and the Greens failed to understand that when it came to WP and the Right’s campaign to drive him out of Parliament, National and Act were playing hard for their own team - their loyalty and solidarity have never been in question.
That left them facing a choice. They could pretend that ruthless partisanship and media hysteria formed no part of the equation they were attempting to solve, or, they could accept that a vote in favour of censuring WP would deliver a significant victory for National/Act.
In the context of an election campaign in its early, positioning, phase, that was an important call. And by calling it National’s way they have either inadvertantly, or deliberately, aligned themselves with the Right.
They will have to live with that. The Maori Party, in particular, by saying one thing on the marae and Maori radio, and then doing precisely the opposite on the Floor of the House of Representatives, have opened themselves up to enfiliading fire from NZ First in the communities of their core vote.
That’s just the way politics works. And, frankly, the homilies being preached here by people who on this and many other blogs have been prejudging WP for weeks, merely confirms me in my conviction that the Right is utterly incapable of perceiving in their own behaviour the sins they are very quick to condemn in others.
Michael Cullen’s analysis of the evidence presented to the PC accords very closely with my own. Whether or not one accepts that analysis really does depend on whether one is disposed to place the best or worst construction upon WP’s evidence.
National, Act and virtually the entire MSM were only ever interested in placing the worst possible construction on his evidence. Which is why the Government issued its minority report, and why the PC is open to the charge of partisanship.
Nothing, now, can alter the fact that the Greens and the Maori Party joined with National and Act in bringing WP down. Regardless of what happens on November 8, people will remember that. And just as it did for WP, what goes around, will come around.
It’s nothing personal guys - it’s just politics.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Nothing, now, can alter the fact that the Greens and the Maori Party joined with National and Act in bringing WP down. Regardless of what happens on November 8, people will remember that.
Yes I expect their percentage of the vote will increase at the expense of Labour First as a result! Chris, you fail to comprehend that the vast majority of the public, don’t believe Clark, Cullen and Peter’s in regard to this matter, and do not agree with your assessment of it either.
And just as it did for WP, what goes around, will come around.
I agree, and can only hope that post election, we will have seen the last of Labour until they clean up their act!
September 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“That’s just the way politics works.”
No Chris, that’s how politics works in places like Zimbabwe - sorry to keep referring to that country, but such a reference just gets more and more appropriate.
What you advocate is a form of tribalism, demanding that people totally surrender their principles in the interests of the particular sector of the community that those on high horses such as yourself say they’re to support.
Democracy works Chris, only because people shift allegences rather than being fixed in who they support, These days it’s only Labour First, not National, or Act, or the Greens, or The Maori Party that’s thrown away integrity.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Got to agree with Chris on the collusion between the MSM & the Right on this. I think the result has been the way it has influenced a lot of (the apparent majority of) public opinion.
I do think the Greens and Maori had the right to make their own choices on this - that’s MMP. Politically, I think they were/are in a difficult position.
I doubt the Nats would be riding as high in the polls as they are now, if it wasn’t for the support of the MSM over the last couple of years - it’s been quite undemocratic. The Peters issue has been caught up in this.
I think the Peters/NZF funding issue has been much more about politicing than principled positions.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Just because a person or an organisation expressed a view that is contrary to the view expressed by the Labour Party does not mean that they are part of any Right, or any conspiracy.
My own “intuitive explanation of events” is that the MSM is expressing a groundswell opinion that the majority of people in this country subscribe to.
To be most generous to Winston, he made a filing mistake. But then he lied, threatened, bullied, sullied the reputation of several people and made several, changing, outrageously obvious obfuscations on the events.
That’s why there’s a mob out to get him. It’s called ‘the people’.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Chris Trotter
I disagree with you on several points;
In the last two days we have seen a long overdue example of Integrity and honesty being the only currency in parliament. This is how it should be, alliances on less ‘reliable’ allegiances will always fail when you need them the most.
I think it is more a case of National/ACT accompanied by other parties voting for integrity and honesty has delivered a significant victory for public confidence in parliament.
They called it how they saw it, this is what they are elected to do - represent us, not vote on some imaginary blurry line of current teams.
This behaviour is equally represented in partisan people of any stripe.
One would hope the same players would have voted to bring down any MP that had acted as ridiculously as Winston Peters. It’s not about supporting your team - it’s about acting with the highest standard of ethical conduct. Enforcing that the MP’s act with the highest standard of ethical conduct is the PM’s job - now how did she vote again?
September 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“it’s just politics” don’t you get it Chris were all sick of corruption being excused because it’s just politics. WP would not doubt have been convicted if judged by his peers, everybody agrees on that but those, like you, blinded by the desire to keep Labour in power.
Your commentry has really taken a huge dive in it’s quality. I suspect it’s some thing to do with the prospect of Labour getting the boot. Seems like the thought of any one but Labour winning the election brings out the animal instinct of the liberial educated glass house dewellers.
The expectation that all left leaning MP’s should stick together so to defeat the other side is a very similar mantra to that used by the average German during the rise of the Nazis, and that used by the average citerzen of countries around globe being ravaged by a dictator. Most of the citerzen keep quite while morals and values of the country go down the toilet, it begins with the acceptance of a few small breakings of the law in the name of the cause…. “it’s politics so it’s OK.
I suggest you have a read of a very relevant commentry, at this link http://thecriticalthinker.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-nazi-experience-and-radical-islamic-fundamentalism/. No doubt you’ll moke this commentry as some right wing American nutter
September 24th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Chris Trotter
You said here on: Knee-deep in the Big Muddy
I don’t get it, this thread seems to be suggesting that YOU are still defending Winston and that you also expect the the Maori party and the Green party to do the same - for reasons other than what is right and wrong but none the less still defending his actions.
Can you please clarify, do you think that Winston should have been found “not guilty” of misleading parliament, the media and the people of NZ?
September 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Chris:
Oh, thanks dear. I think you’re shaping up into a wonderful case study of commentariat machismo –the oh-so-weary cynicism that’s as fake as a dog-eared Chandler paperback, the “it’s just politics” amorality trying to present itself as hard-nosed pragmatism. What a poseur.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
That was an interesting response, Chris.
Could it be, rather, that Michael Cullen’s desire to maintain power at any cost, to the point of ridiculing the key witness (who happened to be Labour’s largest donor), engaging in fantasy-land questions as to whether somebody other than Winston, who sounded like Winston, answered Winston’s cellphone, ignoring all the glaring inconsistencies, retractions, and corrections to Peters’ evidence over the considerably detailed, weighty, and consistent evidence from Owen Glenn, meant that Cullen was driven to make a purely partisan decision based on retaining Peters in government, rather than deciding on the credibility of the evidence?
September 24th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Chris may have grown up on a farm but he has forgotton what horse sh*t smells like.
I wonder how many Labour MP’s genuinely feel sickened as to how their vote was cast, to not censure Winston. Clark and Cullen rule the party with an iron fist, and many in the party have felt that wrath first hand, so it must be galling to now witness the hypocrisy from the inside, of supporting Winston. I suspect that it is only a matter of weeks, not months, before someone is brave enough to challenge the rotting leadership of the party. And the silenced majority, the decent MP’s left in Labour, will make the coup count.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The Maori Party is in no way responsible for the motives of the any other Party, as suggested by Chris Trotter. They must and have acted according to parliaments rules and to their own values.
Mr. Trotter is saying that the Maori Party must view the world from the left side of the political spectrum, and that all left leaning parties must stick together to protect Winston Peters, regardless of guilt or innocence.
The Maori Party is neither left nor is it right on the political spectrum. It is guided by Maori philosophy and values. It views the world through Maori eyes. So it can easily support Winston’s rights through the Privileges Committee, and to then, on consideration of the evidence, hold him to account.
I find it very interesting that Mr. Trotter omitted any mention of the fact that Jim Anderton abstained in this crucial vote. Now here is a long serving senior Minister, that could not bring himself to vote for Winston, I wonder why. And in light of recent revelations from Dr Sharples, I wonder what pressure must have been brought upon him to not vote against Winston. After all Mr Anderton has never struck me as being a person not able to make up his mind.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Is there anything the left wont do to retain power?
I thank Winston Peters for giving us this golden opportunity to see how dirty and corrupt Labour and the Left really are.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Its almost ritualistic in our democratic system for opposition parties seeking the public mandate to claim to the agent of a return of power to the people and to be restoring good accountable representative government - this from a regime that has lost the public’s trust.
The opposition does this to show how it is loyal to the people’s government of the land, the rule of law and to the democratic process.
The incumbent’s flaws are exposed to show why the government of the land needs the renewal of change. It’s somewhat natural that the media will see itself as having a role in this process of holding government accountable.
It’s a matter of self interest for media to remain on good term’s with a government likely to be re-elected or an opposition likely to come into power -and this can limit the performance of the media.
Within the context of all this, is of course a certain editorial independence. Here positions held across electoral cycles emerge. The Herald and Dominion Post are pro tax cuts, smaller government, business, employers and private enterprise. They would urge a left wing government to be economically responsible and limit the enactment of their manifesto (the campaign against the ERA in 2000 for example). They would resent any compromise by National to be more popular and seek Natonal to find some way to sell public assets despite promising not to do so. This is their editorial position and Peters opposes such sales and if in parliament might well block any attempt to subvert he public will.
As for this issue and the getting of Winston - well whatever the Glenn story version, Winston did not declare he had receved $100,000 for his legal expenses. His rationale, not to me or my party, but to my lawyer. It was not full disclosure, but as to point of law - is it finance ever received by Peters (it’s a bit like should labour in kind be declared an income transfer for tax purposes -see the Field MP case).
September 25th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Chris I used to believe the great personal cost line about Peters and the Winebox. It was Peters one redeeming feature. But it turns out that Brian Henry essentially used family money to bankroll him. Peters never paid anything beyond notional amounts for the legal advice he required from Henry. Lawyers cannot work pro bono unless they have other sources of income. Henry’s family gained that money from decades of taxpayer sponsored subsidy to the forest industry and their company NZ Forest Products.
So Peters has been benefitting from getting on his soap box and being an outright nasty bigoted populist.
I had also believed that Peters lived simply and the lack of assets on the interests register must mean he had spent money on his legal affairs. Now I simply believe he has concealed everything in undisclosed, cunningly constructed trusts.
The man is a liar & corrupt. He took undisclosed money for personal benefit.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:08 am
“Parliament is a place where loyalty and solidarity are the only currencies that count.”
Chris this is a prescription for corruption; one of the main reasons politicians are despised around world is that they club together against the people and against the truth.
While I expect no better from politicians on either side of the house, I would have hoped for better from the fourth estate. I for one am encouraged that the Maori party chose integrity over tribalism, which is what made Mandela a popular hero in our times.
I’m disappointed you would choose Mugabe Chris.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:01 am
66 replies, one in support of your premise from somebody called phil, one racist called sue, a few housekeeping comments from Bryan and the rest form people recoiling in horror.
Surely you must have a breaking strain mr trotter? There must be a point where you say to yourself.. Enough, I cannot keep defending this shower.
It may have done wonders for the site (in terms of Mr Selwyns rankings) but at what cost to your reputation?
September 25th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
Billie Holiday’s performance of ‘Strange Fruit’ — and Abel Meeropol’s chilling lyric — can still move me to tears. That’s what you’re pimping for cheap rhetorical effect, and if that’s “just politics” in your world… Well, to hell with it.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Who’s the tawdry spectacle now, Chris?
September 25th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Carol.
I read your blog and thought you must be a comedienne as well as Chris….
What level-headed thinker in New Zealand would agree with you that the last couple of years have seen the media be a happy clappy brigade for the ‘Right’.
You are on cloud cuckoo land if you think that.
Anything Helen or her ilk do is glossed over and anything John Key or Don Brash have done is paraded around like a head on a stick for as long as they can maintain traction.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Chris, This is just sad. Whatever your motives for this post …. even it is just to create mischief. This whole episode has eroded many reputations - yours more than most.
Even if you feel some personal support for Winston this is a time to say “love the sinner, hate the sin”. That seems to be the position that the Maori Party has taken and they should be commended for it.
The Maori Party show it is possible to show some humanity, remain obejctive when viewing the evidence, and allow proper process to be followed.
I am not sure which is the greater surprise - that the left have embraced WInston so whole heartedly to their bosom, or that the Right have found such common ground with the Maori Party. However, it is clear that it is the latter which shows parliament in the best light.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Well done Chris! Sure touched a raw nerve or two there (poetry and tears even! - where are the biblical quotes!)
Utterly hilarious: the former Orewa-One cheerleaders, “tax-cut” vote buyers and benefit-cut advocates now bawling and bleating through their bleeding hearts as they scramble to build a high horse of principle……pathetic. Thought they would’ve learned by now - demonisations and self-induced lynch-mob campaigns give a very transitory thrill, and only to the gullible participants.
Sorry lads, but you’ve gone off early yet again.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am
So to get this straight, you think they should have ignored the truth? Lied?
I’m losing more & more respect for your side.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Well said llew - Mike Morehu had a very cutting take on the concept of blind justice this morning:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/09/justice-is-blind.html
September 25th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
ak:
You can mock as much as you like, but try listening to ‘Strange Fruit’ some time and you might be a little less inclined to use lynching as a cheap poo line. Or not.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Chris
To abandon good ethics and morals at the alter of power at all cost is to abandon ones soul to the devil and forever be cast by ones fellow men and women as a mere slave not a leader
gd
September 25th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
If the priveleges committee process is tainted as Helen clark says, does that mean, Russel Norman, Te Ururoa Flavell and Peter Dunne are tainted? If it was a lynching as Chris Trotter maintains, in the context of suggesting that the Maori Party has not stood by one of its own is he saying that Te Ururoa Flavell, Peter Dunne and Russel Norman particiapated in racist campaign against Mr Peters?
I have read what the standing orders say about declaring pecuniary interests and gifts. Donors of gifts over $500 have to name each donor “if known or reasonably ascertainable by the member”. There is no retrospective application of a new precedent with regard to “making an honest attempt” as some have had it over the last couple of days. All Mr Peters had to do was ask his lawyer; that he had an arrangement with the lawyer by which he did not ask surely cannot trump his obligation to disclose.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Mr Trotter, I am another who used to have some respect for your opinion, I am a socialist and Labour supporter of 30 years, no more. This desperation to hang onto power at any cost is embarrassing. There is no defence of WP, had he put his hand up at an early stage then this would have been over. His approach is disgraceful but what is more disgraceful has been Labour’s absolute BS cover and bluff to keep him their at any cost. I am really in a dilemna of having to back National just to get rid of Helen and WP. At ANY cost.
Mr Trotter, you have lost the plot completely and I am convinced you have reduced yourself to the same status as a talkback radio host. Anything controversial just to keep the hits coming. You really have become pathetic. Do you have any comprehension how removed from reality you are?
September 25th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
That is exactly right, bka. Peters’ posturing is the height of absurdity.
The rule says you have to tell the truth, and take reasonable steps to make sure it’s the truth.
The Privileges Committee this says you have to make an honest attempt to tell the truth.
Winston Peters complains: “That’s not fair! This is news to me! Nobody told me that taking reasonable steps to tell the truth means making an honest attempt! These guys are lynching me!”
September 25th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Dock,
thank-you for your informed and incisive analysis. As you obviously like to be well-informed, some of the following examples may interest you:
In general many people have become increasingly critical of the way The New Zealand Herald has increasingly become a cheerleader for National, especially when it comes to some key political issues: eg the Electoral Finance Act. They waged a strong campaign for National over that, and being the daily for the largest urban population in the country they had quite a bit of influence.
Then there is the way Peters case was intensively investigated, and reported on, with continual attempts to link it to Clark/Labour, while less in-depth, critical attention and/or investigation was given to the National party revelations in the Hollowmen. The media coverage of Hager’s book is mentioned in an article here by Wayne Hope at AUT.
http://www.pjreview.info/issues/docs/13_1/PJR13_1_7_hagerpp197-204.pdf
He said that the media gave The Hollowmen a lot of coverage at first: “Then, suddenly, the headlines stopped. Key and English acted as if nothing had happened and news coverage moved on. Meanwhile, National-aligned advisers, journalists, commentators and bloggers set out to damage the author’s reputation.”
There is another interesting recent piece of research (July 2008) that investigated whether there was media gender bias against Helen Clark compared with Key.
http://postgraduate-education.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Comrie_ANZCA08.pdf
Margie Comrie says that the reporting in the MSM of Clark is complex, and concludes, that mostly she is covered much the same way as male politicians, but there is still some unfairness & she is at a bit of a disadvantage compared with Key. However, in the article she also gives quite a few egs of the way Clark is treated negatively and Key positively, giving an indication of a general bias against Clark in recent times.
I could give more egs but that’s enuff for now.
Yours,
from “cloud cuckoo land”
September 25th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The history of the SFO, the Fay corruption at the public’s expense, the knighthood bestowed on a financial criminal of the highest order and yet Winston Peters is the only one that gets attacked by the media, the moralistic greens, the ActNats, and so many NZers forget that without Winston Peters the damage done in this country by the extreme right would have been unstoppable. He should have been knighted not Fay, not Douglas.
I won’t forget what he did for the olds, the removal of the surcharge on super that Bolger promised but didn’t deliver, etc.
The extreme right help me keep my eye on the goal. The thought of having that corrupt and unbridled, unprincipled, misogynistic group of neo-conservative slippery shadows running my beloved country, after what Douglas and Richardson did in the 80s and the 90s reinforces the will to fight to keep Helen Clark and this Labour Government in Government until all New Zealanders are strong enough to withstand the destructive plans of the right.
National is still infected with the Act/BusinessRoundtable canker. It needs to rid itself before New Zealand is safe to even consider National as a constructive future party worthy of being in Government. Key has to go, McCully has to go…
September 26th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Carol,
May I attempt to offer a concise reason to the mystery of why the media’s obsession with the Hollow Men stopped so abruptly? Because when a scandal erupts, the public and the media look for a scalp. Somebody to take responsibility. They can manage it either by falling on their sword, or publicly fronting up and apologising.
Don Brash fell on his sword. The media’s lust for a scalp was satisfied.
Over the past seven months, the scandal over the NZ First donations saga has not gone away. Why? Because none of the main characters involved have taken responsibility for it. No scalp. No contrition. No apology. Winston still clings to his baubles, with no repercussions. Helen Clark still publicly says that she was right not to tell the public about the conflict of evidence for six months. In the meantime, she’s managed to offend her largest donor, which has only further fueled the story. Winston has fueled the story through antagonising the media, Parliament as a whole, and just yesterday, the Maori Party. It hasn’t helped that Labour has run interference on the whole issue for so long.
Earlier in the week, a minor scandal broke over John Key’s shareholding in a public company. His performance on one news was pretty shabby. What did he do? He fronted up, explained himself, acted contrite, and apologised. The media’s lust for resolution was achieved.
None of this stuff is great conspiracy. It’s politics. If you’re in a hole, don’t keep digging.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:32 am
I don’t think Chris wrote this to get hits on his blog.
I think he wrote it because that’s the way he sees it.
And several others here see it the same way. And its obvious that there is a groundswell of sympathy for Winston from decent NZers who hate the vicious attack dogs of the right and for this reason are prepared to forgive whatever Winston has done.
But if we’re talking corruption, there is no evidence pointing to Peters.
Hooten pontificates about Peters’ failure to make an ‘honest attempt’ to declare a pecuniary interest. But a donation to pay for an electoral challenge is not a pecuniary interest. Peters was already elected as a list member. He did not stand to benefit financially from a successful challenge. Quite the reverse, he stood to lose when it failed. This is actually a pattern for Peters who has taken on many legal challenges at his own expense. If his bills are paid by others that reduces his liability, it does not represent a pecuniary benefit. The obvious way to deal with this is for the state to fund electoral challenges in close contests.
What is a pecuniary interest however, is John Key’s dealings in Tranzrail shares while he was a ministerial spokesperson for transport. Now that does require an ‘honest attempt’ to declare it. It had to be dragged out of him.
What we are comparing here is money used to challenge the election of Bob the builder in Tauranga when more than a million dollars was channeled to National from the Brethren, and money made by a would-be PM for his personal gain as a result of the privilege of public office.
No wonder the righties are frothing at the mouth about Winston getting away with a censure which he rejects with likely impuntiy, while his enemies condemn themselves with their complicity in a witch-hunt and have to face the fact that their front man may also be a con man.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I struggle to see the logic here Dave. I’ll ask you a question. If Owen Glenn had not paid Brian Henry’s bill, who would have paid it? If the Spencer Trust had not paid the costs awarded to Clarkson, who would have been liable?
Winston Raymond Peters, that’s who. Who benefited from somebody else paying the bills for which he would otherwise have been responsible? Winston Peters.
If there was no personal or political interest in Winston Peters pursuing an electoral challenge, why did Winston Peters pursue it at all? Is there not an advantage to an MP in having an electorate seat? Yes, of course there is. It makes his political future much more secure. If he had won the electoral petition and won back Tauranga, then his party wouldn’t have been agonising to the extent that it has about breaking the 5% thresh-hold.
And one could easily argue, Peters has staked his political career around litigation. Did Peters not obtain a large amount of political capital from the Winebox campaign? It has been the one defining moment in his career that he has survived from ever since.
Much of Peters’ legal costs have been in pursuing and defending defamation actions. When Peters defamed Selwyn Cushing–in the case where the judge said that Peters was a liar, and that the only fact Peters got right was Cushing’s name–Peters was not standing up for public interest. Peters has been involved in more defamation cases than any other politician in New Zealand history. While there are no doubt political gains to be made from going around defaming people and accusing them of conspiracies, the law says there’s also an economic cost to damaging others’ reputations.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Tim you willfully confuse Peters’ ‘personal’ or ‘political’ gain with his private ‘pecuniary interest’.
Pecuniary interest means you stand to gain financially. Peter’s litigation arising out of his political (I think his persona is almost inseparable) interests are not for the purpose of advancing his financial interests. Whatever his political style it is political and not pecuniary. He has not made a career of losing cases to advance his bank balance. As I pointed out above donations towards his legal expenses in pursuit of his political interests cannot be construed as his ‘pecuniary interest’. Every fair minded Kiwi knows this in his/her gut.
But as for Key. Well, his dealing in Tranzrail shares where he personally stood to gain from inside knowledge, is not to a matter of advancing his political career. Soliciting donations for the Waitemata Trust falls into that category. But share trading using public office for personal gain is a private pecuniary interest. As The Standard points out this morning, the timeline of Key’s trading of his personal Tranzrail shares spans the period when he was representing the NZ parliament talking to Rail America. No doubt you will enlighten The Standard as to how any knowledge Key gained in this public role couldnt possibly be of pecuniary interest.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=3153