Saturday, September 20, 2008

The confusion of Winston Peters

Courtesy of a link from Audrey Young's blog, I've just listened to the audio of an interview between Winston Peters and Larry Williams on Newstalk ZB yesterday afternoon, and it is a must-listen - head down the page to "Related Audio" and click the "Listen" button. In some ways it was vintage Winston Peters - bluff, bluster, everyone else is wrong but me etc; in other ways it was an interview with a defeated man. Peters stumbled over words, frequently having to correct himself, and at times was barely coherent. I won't speculate as to the reasons for that. Listen for yourself, and make your own judgment. Keeping Stock believes however that the end is nigh for Peters.

But back to Audrey's blog; she is beginning to feel vindicated I suspect. Having been accused by Peters of lying and of fabricating an e-mail she wouldn't be human if she didn't have a sly chuckle as Peters's version of events changes, changes again and the unravels. She says:

In the radio interview, Mr Peters says that the differing stories - about the reimbursement of Mr Henry - was made in the pressure of the committee when he had very little time to prepare.

In fact, it was made two days later in the speech in which says Mr Henry had checked his records and found that Mr Peters had reimbursed him.

The only way that can be true is if Peters and the Spencer Trust are one in the same and we know from a press conference in Auckland with Peters on July 11 that he knew nothing about the Spencer Trust. An extract ...

Q: Mr Peters are you seriously saying that people are meant to believe that you don't know what the ST is used for?
A: Yes I do. You know why? Because those are the facts.
Q: We asked your brother yesterday and he wouldn't answer the question.
A: Well Audrey you should show a bit of knowledge, experience and a bit of commonsense, right? Go and ask him again.
Q: Who should we ask?
A: You're entitled to ask it all the questions you like.
Q: But you're not answering them.
A: How can I answer them if I'm not in charge of the trust.
Q: Because you know what that trust is using the money for.
A: Sorry I don't.
Q: Really?
A: Well I just said no I don't.

Unfortunately the stories in this whole sorry saga keep changing as new facts emerge.

Keeping Stock believes that Peters has dug a huge hole for himself. Having initially denied any knowledge of the Spencer Trust until recently, it now seems that he has known about it for much, much longer. Clearly the SFO has detected the $40,000 payment, and having heard Peters say he paid it personally will doubtless have been "of interest" to them. Peters is furious that the SFO has ambushed him at the Privileges Committee. Much as he tries to blame the National Party, the SFO and anyone else whom he has ever fallen foul of (which would be a big list!), it is hard to escape the conclusion that he has been caught "bang to rights".


Bewitched said...

If Peters thinks that he has faced the worst of his complaints he better think again. There are more serious issues to come. Its all about timing.

Inventory2 said...

Cheers for that Bewitched - Peters almost sounded defeated on that interview. You can't help but wonder that he suddenly realises that all his chickens are coming home to roost.

Anonymous said...

IV2, I heard that interview on the bus on the way home from work (I plug my walkman in and drift off!)and I totally concur. That was the worst I have heard Winston. His problem is evident: he has told so many lies and is under so much pressure he doesn't know what to do or say.

It was quite amazing, and he admitted lying to the PC also.

Chickens. Roost.


Inventory2 said...

Obviously the Privileges Committee has put out the first draft of its report, so Peters has nowhere to go. He is going to be exposed as a liar anyway. But, do you reckon it was Brown O'Clock wherever he was?

Anonymous said...

So if he's lied to the priviledges committee can't they just jail him?

Or cut off his ears?

Or hang him from the nearest flagpole?

technically, under NZ law as it stands today, the answer is: yes to all the above