Discussion:
Interesting opinion piece on Ardern and Peters
(too old to reply)
Crash
2020-02-27 07:25:15 UTC
Permalink
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-ardern-s-refusal-reprimand-winston-peters-nothing-short-disgraceful

He makes good points. It does make me wonder whether Peters has
issued a pre-emptive warning to Ardern about Ardern standing him down:

"Before you do that, sweetie, just remember whose support got you and
your party into government". That would be classic Winston.


--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-02-27 19:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-ardern-s-refusal-reprimand-winston-peters-nothing-short-disgraceful
He makes good points. It does make me wonder whether Peters has
That would be entirely in character.
Post by Crash
"Before you do that, sweetie, just remember whose support got you and
your party into government". That would be classic Winston.
--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-02-28 01:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-ardern-s-refusal-reprimand-winston-peters-nothing-short-disgraceful
He makes good points. It does make me wonder whether Peters has
"Before you do that, sweetie, just remember whose support got you and
your party into government". That would be classic Winston.
I'd have thought such constraints are so plain as to need no mentioning.

I’ve previously alluded to the fish hooks and loopholes that come with MMP, and you’ve then asked me what these might be? I reserved my response for such a moment as this:

Let’s just say that Peters is a walking, talking compendium of both; one fish hook being particular to any king-maker “partner”: i.e., the possibility - probability, even - of his delivering, as you suggest, a “watch it sweetie” threat to the PM any time he chooses; the other being the yawning chasms built into our electoral laws by self-serving shysters (IOW MPs) that enable parties and their donors to hide in plain sight single lump sums that would otherwise breach the maxima permitted under legislation - i.e. the “legitimised” division of large lump sums into “legally qualifying” smaller sub-packages under differing donor entities so that they may appear unrelated.

A thoroughgoing in-your-face scam, debunking and destroying at a stroke any mewling claim that this is a nation run on dearly held egalitarian, democratic principles. New Zealand top smell in the Transparency International **Percieved** Corruption Index? Total unmitigated horseshit.

But hey! - let’s forget all that moralistic crap! Nah - everything’s all fine and dandy - superficially anyway - until you (allegedly) chance your arm way further than is prudent as in the current Peters controversy which, inevitably - has left Ardern severely compromised.

Yet her salvation may ultimately lie in that venal, timeworn ‘what’s-in-it-for-me’ wallet syndrome that invariably prevails at every general election to the virtual exclusion of all else. In any case, Ardern will have as her as yet untested antagonist, a pudgy, sweaty-browed croaker, whose supreme charismatic quality is that of “having the smell of death about him”.

Suddenly, I somehow sense that familiar whiff of 'Hobson's choice' in the air.
Rich80105
2020-02-28 04:16:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:31:26 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-ardern-s-refusal-reprimand-winston-peters-nothing-short-disgraceful
He makes good points. It does make me wonder whether Peters has
"Before you do that, sweetie, just remember whose support got you and
your party into government". That would be classic Winston.
I'd have thought such constraints are so plain as to need no mentioning.
Let’s just say that Peters is a walking, talking compendium of both; one fish hook being particular to any king-maker “partner”: i.e., the possibility - probability, even - of his delivering, as you suggest, a “watch it sweetie” threat to the PM any time he chooses; the other being the yawning chasms built into our electoral laws by self-serving shysters (IOW MPs) that enable parties and their donors to hide in plain sight single lump sums that would otherwise breach the maxima permitted under legislation - i.e. the “legitimised” division of large lump sums into “legally qualifying” smaller sub-packages under differing donor entities so that they may appear unrelated.
A thoroughgoing in-your-face scam, debunking and destroying at a stroke any mewling claim that this is a nation run on dearly held egalitarian, democratic principles. New Zealand top smell in the Transparency International **Percieved** Corruption Index? Total unmitigated horseshit.
But hey! - let’s forget all that moralistic crap! Nah - everything’s all fine and dandy - superficially anyway - until you (allegedly) chance your arm way further than is prudent as in the current Peters controversy which, inevitably - has left Ardern severely compromised.
Yet her salvation may ultimately lie in that venal, timeworn ‘what’s-in-it-for-me’ wallet syndrome that invariably prevails at every general election to the virtual exclusion of all else. In any case, Ardern will have as her as yet untested antagonist, a pudgy, sweaty-browed croaker, whose supreme charismatic quality is that of “having the smell of death about him”.
Suddenly, I somehow sense that familiar whiff of 'Hobson's choice' in the air.
The article by John Armstrong appears to be based on the theory that
where there is smoke there must be a raging inferno. I am not saying
that there are not donation scandals that will result in prosecutions,
and it appears there is sufficient material to warrant investigation
in relation to NZ First donations, just as there was for National, and
perhaps in future may be the case with other parties. Innocent until
proven guilty is a long standing tradition, which should balance
natural caustion in keeping someone in a position where their proven
actions are objectionable, even is not technically provable to be
illegal.

The concerns over the NZ First donations are of two sorts - legality,
and political propriety - ethics. Taking money for legislation /
regulation is objectionable, but while the evidence may appear to
support that conclusion, we are not privy to discussions - Labour and
Green Ministers will have been.

Throwing allies under the bus may be attactive to the gotcha media,
but has no place in a balanced, measured consideration of the public
interest - reality should sometimes intrude, and with a close majority
and an election now fairly close, it is reasonable not to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. Racing interests do not appear to have
received unjustified assistance - they are if anything upset at
proposed changes, which are in any event still being publicly
discussed. I am not saying that NZ First, and / or Winston Peters,
have done nothing wrong; but importantly no-one is able to prove any
such allegation. Receiving donations from a 'murky' donor is something
all parties do . . .

I do hope thae various investigations and prosecutions are completed
prior to the election.
JohnO
2020-02-28 04:59:19 UTC
Permalink
If there's smoke, Dickbot, you should get out of the house.

The deputy pm needs to observe the smoke and behave accordingly.
Rich80105
2020-02-28 06:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
If there's smoke, Dickbot, you should get out of the house.
I'm OK, JohnO, but thanks for the thought.
Post by JohnO
The deputy pm needs to observe the smoke and behave accordingly.
That applies to all MPs and public servants.

Sometimes the smoke is fairly visible:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/inside-25-billion-ball-top-21584553

and

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-10-2018/the-jami-lee-tapes-a-transcript-of-the-ross-and-bridges-donation-chat/

But I don't expect anyone to get out of the house - do you?
John Bowes
2020-02-28 22:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:31:26 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-ardern-s-refusal-reprimand-winston-peters-nothing-short-disgraceful
He makes good points. It does make me wonder whether Peters has
"Before you do that, sweetie, just remember whose support got you and
your party into government". That would be classic Winston.
I'd have thought such constraints are so plain as to need no mentioning.
Let’s just say that Peters is a walking, talking compendium of both; one fish hook being particular to any king-maker “partner”: i.e., the possibility - probability, even - of his delivering, as you suggest, a “watch it sweetie” threat to the PM any time he chooses; the other being the yawning chasms built into our electoral laws by self-serving shysters (IOW MPs) that enable parties and their donors to hide in plain sight single lump sums that would otherwise breach the maxima permitted under legislation - i.e. the “legitimised” division of large lump sums into “legally qualifying” smaller sub-packages under differing donor entities so that they may appear unrelated.
A thoroughgoing in-your-face scam, debunking and destroying at a stroke any mewling claim that this is a nation run on dearly held egalitarian, democratic principles. New Zealand top smell in the Transparency International **Percieved** Corruption Index? Total unmitigated horseshit.
But hey! - let’s forget all that moralistic crap! Nah - everything’s all fine and dandy - superficially anyway - until you (allegedly) chance your arm way further than is prudent as in the current Peters controversy which, inevitably - has left Ardern severely compromised.
Yet her salvation may ultimately lie in that venal, timeworn ‘what’s-in-it-for-me’ wallet syndrome that invariably prevails at every general election to the virtual exclusion of all else. In any case, Ardern will have as her as yet untested antagonist, a pudgy, sweaty-browed croaker, whose supreme charismatic quality is that of “having the smell of death about him”.
Suddenly, I somehow sense that familiar whiff of 'Hobson's choice' in the air.
The article by John Armstrong appears to be based on the theory that
where there is smoke there must be a raging inferno. I am not saying
that there are not donation scandals that will result in prosecutions,
and it appears there is sufficient material to warrant investigation
in relation to NZ First donations, just as there was for National, and
perhaps in future may be the case with other parties. Innocent until
proven guilty is a long standing tradition, which should balance
natural caustion in keeping someone in a position where their proven
actions are objectionable, even is not technically provable to be
illegal.
The trouble here Rich that the NZFirst Foundation is a raging fire much like those Australia suffered from. There has been a lot of smoke around Winston and his party since MMP was first started!
Post by Rich80105
The concerns over the NZ First donations are of two sorts - legality,
and political propriety - ethics. Taking money for legislation /
regulation is objectionable, but while the evidence may appear to
support that conclusion, we are not privy to discussions - Labour and
Green Ministers will have been.
Ethics? Winston's government has none! Hell I bet that like you Rich they don't even comprehend the meaning of the word :)
Post by Rich80105
Throwing allies under the bus may be attactive to the gotcha media,
but has no place in a balanced, measured consideration of the public
interest - reality should sometimes intrude, and with a close majority
and an election now fairly close, it is reasonable not to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. Racing interests do not appear to have
received unjustified assistance - they are if anything upset at
proposed changes, which are in any event still being publicly
discussed. I am not saying that NZ First, and / or Winston Peters,
have done nothing wrong; but importantly no-one is able to prove any
such allegation. Receiving donations from a 'murky' donor is something
all parties do . . .
So now you're saying clark was wrong to stand down Winston last time he tried hiding donations to the party?
Post by Rich80105
I do hope thae various investigations and prosecutions are completed
prior to the election.
Won't make any difference Rich. You can bet Winston will be struggling for donations for a while and the $500,000 in his slush fund won't go far. Plus the senile old bastard has turned the press against him with his self serving propaganda he posted on Facebook and Twitter because he didn't trust the media to report him correctly:)
Gordon
2020-02-28 04:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrongs-opinion-jacinda-ardern-s-refusal-reprimand-winston-peters-nothing-short-disgraceful
He makes good points. It does make me wonder whether Peters has
"Before you do that, sweetie, just remember whose support got you and
your party into government". That would be classic Winston.
I'd have thought such constraints are so plain as to need no mentioning.
Well some need it pointed out, but the situation is that Labour gamble is to
cut Winston off if he does not stand down or have National win, sorry form a
(minority) Government. Assuming no collasping of positions.
Loading...