...... according to both Helen & Peter's websites. Helen suppose to be acting Foreign Affair's minister, a subject she 'loves', yet it's not listed as one of her responsibilities.
The Labour website should be kept up-to-date because they're the governing party (for now) and the site is paid for by the taxpayer.
The Owen Glenn, Winston Peter, and Mike Williams saga is just one piece of a puzzle for which the picture has been quite clear for sometime now; Helen Clark owes her third term to acts of corruption.
You don't have to be partial to conspiracy theories to realise this. Lets see.....
- Labour stole $820,000 from the tax payer to fund a key component of their '05 election campaign.
- Labour broke the electoral spending cap - an act defined as a corrupt practice in the law.
- The Maori Party was offered $250,000 to side with Labour post '05 election.
- Labour's biggest donor gave $100,000 to Winston Peters early after the 2005 election to pay for his legal battles with National's Bob Clarkson and possibly even Rodney Hide.
- Labour and Winston Peters obtained copies of 100s of Don Brash's and National's email correspondence and released some of them at critical times during the '05 election campaign. How they got them they won't say.
- Owen Glenn gave Labour a $100,000 interest free loan to help pay for Labour's '05 election overspend, a loan which Mike William initially denied.
- Labour arranged buses to take Mangere voters to the polls. This in itself isn't corrupt (though taking advantage of the politically naive Pacific Islanders is hardly ethical), Labour's '05 Mangere candidate Philip Field is up for charges of corruption. There has also been recent speculation that Labour bribed Mangere people KFC for votes!
- Well before the '05 election Helen Clark and Phil Goff broke an important convention and released MFAT notes take during a meeting between National and American senators. They then used the 'gone by lunchtime' quote as an attack theme during the '05 election.
- Post '05 election Labour passed a law to make their illegal overspending legal.
- Post '05 election Labour passed the radial Electoral Finance Act without even consulting opposition parties; a break in parliamentary convention of the worst kind.
- Post '05 election Labour has stacked the public service with their cronies; another serious break in parliamentary convention.
The above points are all fact and have been reported in the media. They either show an abuse of power or outright corruption on Labour's part. New Zealand is a small democracy with only one house of parliament and no constitution. Conventions are what hold the place together, so to deliberately break them is very serious.
The facts are pretty damming, but I reckon there's more going on behind the scenes but can not be proven (yet). For example.
- Helen Clark won't fire Winston Peters because she not only knew about Glenn's donation to Winston Peters, but approved it. In fact the donation may have been a condition of Winston's coalition deal with Helen.
It all adds up to the 2005 election being stolen from National and Don Brash. And this is why I can't stand Helen Clark and why she has to lose the election on November 08/08.
Quote
Jim Hopkins: Hurrah for Fat Controllers and clever choo-choo plan - 09 May 2008 - Politics: New Zeal
Some of my favourite quotes:
"Paying the thick end of $700 mill for a grimy bunch of clapped-out trains is daft!! With a capital Duh!!!!!!"
"Perhaps it's because they're a nostalgic echo of the 19th century much like the Treaty, with which our leaders are also needlessly besotted. Perhaps it's because trains are the limit of their technological imagination. Perhaps it's the irresistible thought of all the new stations they can open and ribbons they can snip."
As I stood next to one huge forest fire, I thought of all the times I have been urged to unplug my phone charger, turn my TV off standby or turn the thermostat down by a couple of degrees.
Yet I cannot remember ever being told that the fires burning down the rainforest are responsible for 20% of worldwide carbon emissions, the same amount as all the transport in the world combined.
The leftist blog 'The Standard' bangs on about political misdirection so much that I decided to steal the term to highlight the substantial issue of environmental misdirection.
With attention focused on carbon emissions, other environmental issues like deforestation of the rain forest and reduced species biodiversity are left by the wayside.
While celebrities lecture us about reducing our carbon footprint to achieve a non-specific goal, species are becoming extinct and forests are being destroyed.
It's very easy to measure success with saving a species e.g. increase the kiwi population by 10,000 birds. But you can never fail if you're advocating climate change because how do you know if you succeed?
It's a pity National leader John Key did not reach out directly to domestic purposes beneficiaries to persuade them why it was in their best interests to seek work once their youngest reaches six.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says he is happy for the public to hear what he has to say to the privileges committee next Monday and wishes the hearing was earlier in the day so more people could attend.
Mr "5.6%" Peters is both irrelevant and important at the same time - which is exactly why MMP is flawed.
Then again, any Labour minister brought in front of the privileges committee would get similar amounts of attention. The difference being the attention would be unwanted in the Labour minister's case.
All Winston needs is 5% of the vote, so any publicity is good publicity.
Sure what Winston has done is hypocritical and reflects badly on himself, but the irony is that the heavy news coverage may actually help him.
In my opinion - Winston doomed himself and his party as soon as he signed up with Labour which is the main reason why they're low in the opinion polls. NZ 1st voters are naturally conservative. So all the scandals surrounding Winston only cements his supporters because 95% of New Zealanders wouldn't vote for him anyway.
I haven't blogged specially on Peters up till now because frankly he's just a sideshow.... a has been. He had promise in 1996 & 2002, but he continually disappoints. Many National voters who defected to him in 2002 did so on the proviso he would be a formidable voice in opposition to Labour - because at the time National sure wasn't. But instead he spent the entire time attacking National and even more so when Dr Brash became leader. His attacks haven't really subsided since John Key became leader.
Winston has past up one opportunity after another.
After reading that the left-wing activities who infiltrated the Nats conference and quizzed MPs on left-touchstone issues, I decided to quiz myself on the issues.
I'm defining a touchstone issue as something that divides opinion. Other bloggers are welcome to take the quiz and post results on their blogs. The best way to determine your political allegiances is when you consider the issues rather than party personalities. So am I right or left - libertarian or authoritarian?
1. Civil unions: for or against?
For. If people want their relationship to be reconginised in the eyes of the law... why not. Though from a libertarian perspective I personally don't see why the state needs to validate relationships.
2. Prostitution Reform Act reform: for or against?
Leaning toward against. I hate to think this has become a genuine career choice for young woman....
3. Legalised Cannabis for or against?
Leaning toward for. Ultimately I'm for freedom of choice. But scientific evidence shows cannabis can cause genetic damage. Then again.. I drink diet coke.
4. Nuclear weapons: for or against?
For unfortunately. A necessary evil. In any other time an army numbering in the millions (China and Iran) would be out conquering countries. The only thing keeping them at bay are nuclear weapons.
5. US naval ship visits: for or against?
For - for the reason above.
6. Republic or Monarchy.
Monarchy. Because I consider British traditions part of our culture too!
7. Anti-smacking: for or against?
Leaning toward for.
8. Global warming: Skeptic or believer.?
Leaning toward skeptic. I can accept the world is warming, but the political measures to combat GW are rubbish. The elephant in the room GW activists ignore is population growth. One person = how many energy efficient bulbs...? I support reducing carbon for clean air benefits. However the ETS is rubbish.
9. Nuclear power for New Zealand: for or against?
For. Should be at least on the table - especially if the hydrogen economy comes about and to reduce carbon emissions. A royal commission of enquirer would determine if it's right for NZ
10. Genetic engineering: for or against?
For. How else are we going to feed the worlds ever going population?
11. Kiwibank: Sell or keep?
Leaning toward sell. Don't Kiwibank and Westpac et al. borrow money from the same off shore location? So interest paid on Kiwibank mortgages goes to the same off shore lender. The main argument for keeping it in my eyes is they have branches in rural locations.
12. Broadband or trains?
Broadband. Trains are so last century.
13. Electoral finance act: for or against?
Against - let the Exclusive Brethren and the unions campaign - the electorate is smart enough to sort out crap from crap.
14. State funding: for or against?
Against. But could be convinced otherwise.
15. MMP: for or against?
Against. Another proportional system please - perhaps like what the Aussies have.
16. Obama or McCain?
Obama - because I'm sick of anti-Americanism. Though I wish he was pro-free trade.
17. Minimum wage increases: for or against?
For - as long as the increases are pegged to some sort of wage growth index. Currently the minimum wage equals $26000 a year before tax (based on a 40 week). That's enough to get by, but is pretty rubbish really. But to be honest I haven't considered the economic implications.
EMBATTLED NATIONAL deputy leader Bill English says he will "never" challenge John Key for the party leadership.English, who was National leader from 2001 to 2003, said he no longer wanted the post "because John Key is doing an excellent job and, having worked with a number of leaders and been one, I'm probably in a better position than most to judge that".
It is Key's loose-lipped talk, coupled with the rather too frank comments that English sometimes makes about him, that would have persuaded his opponents that the deputy would be a rich candidate for entrapment. Who can forget his priceless "I'm a stayer, he's a sprinter. I grind away, John just bounces from one cloud to another"? I blogged this week that English's 'loose' comments about John Key were more a reflection of his style rather any split between the two. Fran's column above throws doubt on my theory. She speculates there is an 'ideological rift' between Key and English and that English will eventually roll Key for the prime ministership. Having leadership ambitions and differences in opinion are fine - even healthy - just as long as English doesn't under mind his leader. So in light of Fran's column I've a couple of concerns about Bill English: - English rates himself too highly evident by his comment that Brash and Key don't fully understand WfF - Even though English said he'd never be leader again when he first became deputy, he still harbours leadership ambitions - Combining the two above equals an un-contented deputy leader I wonder whether Key made the right choice when he made English his deputy/finance minister. So given my concerns I reckon Don Brash would've been the better choice for deputy/finance minister and keep Bill English as education spokesperson where he was doing an excellent job. Brash would've been ideal for the job because after his failed bid for PM and his age - he'd have no desire to be leader again.
