Cullen has lost the plot: Clark didn't get the cash

When John Key ruled out working with Winston Peters after the election unless this donation scandal was resolved, Michael Cullen said it was statement with "wriggle room". Key has now removed the wriggle and ruled out working with Winston Peters or NZ First outright after the election. So Cullen said Key was disregarding natural justice and not letting inquiries finish before passing judgement. He said Owen Glenn was "confused".

It's a pity Cullen didn't criticise Peter's lawyer Peter Williams, who believes that if Peters' donations arrangements were above board that the fact that he has not declared donations as required was irrelevant.

"Oh, I don' t know about that rubbish , I couldn't discuss that", Williams said, but added there was no evidence of fraud.

So Cullen thinks it is fine not to declare donations as well, I wonder? As for Helen Clark's opinion, she wont give it as she's refusing to talk to the media, because she doesn't want to tell them that the reason she did not reveal what she knew about Glenn's donation to Peters is because she was trying to get money out of Glenn herself - via Mike Williams - as Labour is short of cash, and to reveal what she knew earlier may mean that Labour missed out on Glenn's cash.

They missed out anyway.

Will " liar" Mike Williams be replaced?

Mike WIlliams is a liar. Okay, that's not news. I have been away and have caught up with the news that Williams has publically lied about what went on at the Labour Party conference after some delegate on Labours ruling council - who so happened to be Ruth Dyson's husband - suggested that leaflets from the department Dyson oversees be used as campaign material to subvert the Electiral Finance Act - and that Williams thought that was a " damn good idea".

Should Williams be replaced by Andrew Little, who appears to be the natural replacement? He`d be replaced if he was a cabinet minister for lying several times.

If so, Little has said that he would be able to keep his role at the EPMU should he gain the Labour Party presidency. Meaning if the EPMU was permitted to register as a Third Party under the Electoral FInance Act the financial agent of a Third Party will be the president of a political party. This won`t be a good look. Is that why Andrew Little is hoping to be the Labour President after the election?

Why should the EPMU be permitted to register as a Third Party if its secretary on Labour's National council is lined up to be Labour President? Would that subsequently disqualify the " neutral" EPMU if Little was to keep both roles?