FERGIE

Her venal attempt to squeeze some value out of her pompous git of an ex husband has shown that she is a no account big mouthed loser.

It is interesting that some commentators are suggesting that she has been forced to engage in the dark arts simply because she is short of a few hundred thousand quid or so.

It is fairly obvious that the worlds best known Ginga has had a bit of work done. There has to beat least a couple of thousand pounds of botox in that frozen countenance.

So does she get sympathy from me? No way. She is a silly wobbly headed vacuous cow.

LOYALTY A SCARCE COMMODITY IN NZ FIRST

Dough Wollerton has obviously had enough of Winstons lies and deception -he told an audience last night that the Privileges Committe hearing was " embarrassing" we couldn't agree more. We thought that Doug may have had some integrity - a flicker of it was evident last night. Read here for what he said in NBR

STILL LOTS OF LOLLIES BEING HANDED OUT BY LABOUR

Queen Bee at the Hive points to some suspicious spending by Labour leading up to the election - someone needs to put a counter on the spending - we reckon its got to be adding up to a tidy sum.

We want some more answers over the lightbulb scandal and we think that the pledgegate book bribe for oldies should be withdrawn.

We want to know if the public is happy for up to$10 milllion on a public lightbulb re-education programme - or if they would want the money spent on a few more courses of Herceptin.?

We think it is a no brainer - saving the lives of women or a social engineering programme to get you to change a lightbulb.

Hooton is on Tv3 Sunrise talking about Pledgegate - and arch lefty Matt McCarten agrees with Hooton -pledgegate is a disgrace. The left will note this - expect the booklet to be withdrawn by the end of today.

And Maurice comes in for some stick - goood - he needs more stick.

THE SCANDALS KEEP COMING TONIGHT

The prawns are onto $8 million light bulb scandals and Hooton has Pledgegate and if I was Darren Hughes I would be very bloody worried = shame really he is supposed to be a good bugger - but he has dropped his leader in shit.

BOOKLET A GREY POWER BRIBE FROM LABOUR

Hooton has been running hot with this all day and Duncan Garner on TV3 has picked up the story and led with it at 6.pm

It is lamb dressed up as mutton - not supposed to look too appetising and it takes legal electioneering to the edge of the law - but morally it stinks worse that a cracked kina in the noon day sun.

Well done Matthew for shedding light on a nasty piece of cynical politics.

And we will be putting the spotlight on some more Labour nanny state policy crap later this evening.

CLARK IS REALLY GOING HARD AFTER THE SENIOR VOTE

Hooton uncovers yet another Labour rort - and you the taxpayer are paying for it - we here at the prawn reckon Winston will be pissed off he never thought of this one. We are also deeply disturbed to hear that some journos had this info but didn't think it was a story - we beg to differ....

Read it and weep (again)

BIG PROMISES - NO DETAIL - WHO'S SLIPPERY NOW HELEN???

Big promises, mini budgets and not a whisper of a detail.. Slippery - very slippery

the Herald thinks so too

However it is a good sign - it shows Labour is very panicky and is trying to pull all the rabbits it can out of the hat to try and woo the voters.

Its a clear sign of desperation and should improve Nationals confidence.

NZ DOESNT TAKE BRIBES

From STUFF

What do you think of Labour's universal student allowance pledge?

It's a wise and much-needed policy (959 votes, 15.6%)
It's a cynical bribe (3732 votes, 60.5%)
I just wish they'd done it earlier (1476 votes, 23.9%)

Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate

FINALLY SOMEONE HAS THE BALLS TO INTERVIEW TOMMY GEAR

this should be interesting - whale oil and kiwi blog are going huntin for tommy.

heres what's happening with tommy


taken a prozac today Winston??????

brat po krvi

Great post explaining the consequences for Peters from Kiwi blog

A summary from Kiwiblog -- More at Kiwiblog

What the committee decreed
Making a false or misleading return is a serious matter, akin to misleading the House. The majority of us therefore recommend that Mr Peters be censured for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests, and ordered to file, within seven days of the House so ordering, amended returns for the years ended 31 January 2006, 2007, and 2008 covering any gifts, debts, or payments in kind that he has not previously registered. We request that the registrar ensure that the amended returns are published, recording that they are made subject to an order of the House.

Kiwiblog sums it up nicely

This could be interesting, as it means any other donation to Peters legal fees, in excess of $500, has to be disclosed - if the House accepts the recommendation.
Now on the part regarding who paid for the $40,000 to Clarkson. Brian Henry is saying that as the cheque was from Wayne Peters’ trust account, he saw this as a reimbursement by Winston personally. Hilarious.
Now onto the letter from the SFO. The Director makes it very clear he got advise on whether to inform the Committee, and he has also bent over backwards to be fair to the donors who paid the $40,000 by redacting their names. He even asks the Privileges Committee not to order him to supply further information, even though he acknowledges a request from the Privileges Committee over-rides the secrecy provisions of the Serious Fraud Act.
The money laundering around the $40,000 is fascinating. Brian Henry did pay the $40,000 but the day before he sent Thompson WIlson (the law firm where two of the Spencer Trustees then worked) his bank account details.
The Spencer Trust only has $15,400 being left over donations from Donor A. Then Person B (not Winston Peters we are told) lent the Trust $24,600 so they could pay $40,000 to Brian Henry on 5 April.
Donor A (almpost certainly the Velas) then donated 4 cheques of $9,999 on the 7th of April 2006. Each cheque was from a different subsidiary company.
This allowed Person B’s loan to be repaid on 7 April.
What this means is that Donor A (almost certainly the Velas) personally donated $40,000 to pay off the $40,000 debt Peters owed Clarkson. He has to now declare this on his amended returns.
This raises massive issues relating to the conduct of his portfolios. The whole idea of disclosure is that the transparency it brings to whether Government decisions are affected by donations or gifts to an MP.
So the Minister for Racing in 2006 had Donor A - almost certainly the Velas, pay a $40,000 debt on his behalf. The Velas are multi-millionaires in the racing industry. And the Minister of Racing convinces the Government - against Treasury advice - to provide lots of money to the racing industry.
Does Helen Clark not think that this gift should have been disclosed as it strikes at the heart of decision making in her Government? And no it is nothing to do with NZ First - this is a personal gift to the Minister of Racing from persons massively affected by the policies he is responsible for in his portfolio.
Helen actually has three decisions to make. They are:
Does she sack Peters as a Minister for breaking the Cabinet Manual and not disclosing a $100,000 gift (let alone the multiple lies Peters has told)
Having the $100,000 gift declared, does she allow Peters to keep it? Probably as it was paid to Henry, not Peters - but here is the big problem for her.
The $40,000 from the Velas (assuming it is them) has to now be filed on the Register by Peters. Clark has to now decide whether she lets him keep the $40,000.
Here is the Cabinet Manual quote from section 2.79:
Ministers who accept gifts worth more than the prescribed value must not only disclose them to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, but also must relinquish them, unless they obtain the express permission of the Prime Minister to retain them.
So it is clear Helen has to decide whether Peters keeps the $40,000 gift (payment of a debt) from the Velas.
Now how corrupt will she look, if she says it is okay for her Minister of Racing to take and keep $40,000 from a family/company which has benefited hugely from the decisions of the Minister of Racing. He managed to force through millions of dollars of funding of racing prizes, against the advice of Treasury.
Clark has to make a decision on this. Peters has to relinquish the gift unless she gives her express permission he can keep it.
No wonder Winston wanted the SFO evidence suppressed. It was bad enough that NZ First had benefited by huge donations from the Velas, but to have it revealed that Peters personally was gifted $40,000 from them is hugely damaging.
Now it is possible the donations were not from the Velas but read the SFO letter and it looks highly likely. We should know more when Peters does his amended returns.
And as you consider all this, consider what depths the ethical standards of the Clark Government have descended to. Clark condones a Minister who:
breaks the rules of the Register of Pecuniary Interests
breaks the rules of the Cabinet Manual
fails to disclose a $100,000 gift
tells multiple lies about it
gives false evidence to the Privileges Committee
benefits with $100,000 towards his legal fees from a billionaire whom he then lobbies to be made Consul to Monaco
has a $40,000 debt paid off by a company/family that benefits greatly from policy decisions he makes as Minister of Racing
has filed false donation returns to the Electoral Commission
Any one of these should be enough for dismissal arguably. But Clark is keeping him on despite all of the above. Could standards possibly get any lower?

"They have already gone as low as a street walker giving a dwarf a blowy
so - no can't think of anything lower unless they want to tickle a dead mans cajones." BB