HELENS TWO FACED

Whale oil has some fun go watch here

PM JOINS WINSTON AS A POLITICAL CREEP

Colin Espiner has put fresh legs on the Owen Glenn story this morning .
with this

Clark said last night there was no issue because no appointment had been made.

She revealed she had blocked the proposal because of the possibility that money was involved.

"For my part, once I had heard there had been a donation I didn't think it would be appropriate," she said.

A spokesman confirmed Clark had formally axed the proposal once Glenn told her when they met in February that he had donated money to Peters.

This is bloody outrageous - this information should have been put before the Privileges committee. It shows yet again that in the race for power Clark has lost every shred of integrity she ever had.

She is willing to have a corrupt, lying, creep in her Government just so she can continue to lead the country.

This story is not just about Winstons corruption, its now about Clarks murky, dishonest, self serving politics.

NODDY STILL HAS HIS CAR and his baubles

The herald shows yet again the hypocrisy that is Winston

What an arse - so he tells old people he is looking after them when he is only looking after himself


Read and weep

Eric grumpy with NZ First

Bloody good on Eric - you wouldnt want to cross this big bugger when he gets shitty and he will be mightily grumpy about NZ first spreading falsehoods.

CAMPAIGN NOTEBOOK: Lies Not Welcome

A campaign of “fear driven by lies” was not welcome in the Invercargill election race, Invercargill MP Eric Roy said today.
“For the last three weeks I’ve had superannuitants ringing me and my office saying that Labour is going around Invercargill spreading the lie that National will raise the age of eligibility for government superannuation to 68,” he said.
“John Key has announced National policy on this matter and made it clear that we will give seniors financial certainty by keeping the age of eligibility of NZ Super at 65. We have pledged to keep NZ Super at 66% of the average after-tax wage.
“Labour hasn’t made that pledge. Labour hasn’t put aside the funds for that pledge. Labour is hoping our seniors won’t notice. Well, I won’t play games with our senior citizens. They have given their working lives to this country. National won’t tell lies, and we will make sure their Super payments rise every single year.”
Mr. Roy said he had heard other lies.
“One of my staff was in the supermarket the other day and the checkout operator said she would have to vote Labour because she’d been told by Labour that National was going to cut Working for Families,” he said.
“That is an out-and-out lie. National will give families financial certainty by continuing all Working for Families payments at current levels. We are keeping 20 hours Early Childhood Education, and retaining caps on doctors’ fees.”
Mr. Roy said all of Labour’s campaigning had been based on personal attacks or lies.
“The sad thing is that, like the old adage, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its trousers on. Well, I’m not going to stand by while lies and twisting of the truth are used to undermine my campaign.”
He said Labour’s constant barracking that National was not telling the truth was rubbish.
“Our election pledges have been costed and outlined in full. People know what we are offering and there are no secrets.”

Erics blog is here

ITS ABOUT TRUST HELEN ..

Stuff has a great report on the Te Aro Wellington candidates meeting





the Story is here and includes this gem
In a meeting meant to entertain as much as anything else, Mr Appleby was a crowd-pleaser, noting Prime Minister Helen Clark's emphasis on trust.
"You can't even trust her photograph. I don't want a 19-year- old running this country," he said, referring to her airbrushed billboard image.

Heres what voters really get when they vote clark

WINNIE TELLING PORKIES

Winston has been using his blog to explain that he doesn put up lots of billboard because they get vandalised. He is right, they do, because everyone thinks he is lying tosser but the other reason we hear is, that his campaign team in Tauranga has collapsed.

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

Muck files - deep and dirty shite

Oh hell if it is gonna get rough the Blonde and the other Growlers ( Get Rid Of Winston and Labour ) soldiers will the be last standing - we have piles of poop!



from the Hive and talk of Neutron Bombs

Not content with riddles, Whaleoil is now onto neutron bombs.This all seems pretty old hat to me, though the version being relayed seems to be a merging of two stories/speculations and combining them into one.If it is true that Labour are about to associate themselves with this rumour, then we wish them great luck. We can't see how it can help them at all. No doubt Brent Edwards will try and make a big thing of it.We thought that this election was all about trust, not about muck. But if they want to start throwing muck then it will be very interesting to see where the much settles. Just off to open our muck files. Some of our stuff is REALLY good.
Posted by Queen Bee at 2:24 PM

And from the Whale


Labour are desperate, you can almost smell the fear and you can certainly see it in their actions, words, and planning.
Helen Clark has this morning told us she doesn’t believe in fairies or in opinion polls that have National above 50%. One thing is for sure, the tooth fairy sure as hell doesn’t exist for her.
Labour and the left have a general meme that National can’t get 50% because nowhere else in the world with MMP has anyone ever got more than 50%. Than of course doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen it just means that it hasn’t happened yet. it may well yet happen, but that is up to the people.
Meanwhile as the polls confirm national has more than 50% support from the electorate, and that is more than 50 polls btw, Labour is getting ready to drop its “neutron bomb”. For months in the house they have alluded to it, now with the paarlous state of the polls that Clark doesn’t believe in they are set to launch.



Bring on the bomb we say - go on Bring. It. On!

The VRWC is ready to chuck and biff and tell stuff!