Failed Labour candidate gets fellow MP to lie to the media

Former CTU secretary and current Labour List MP Carol Beaumont, who contested the Maungakiekie seat and lost to National MP Peseta Sam Lotuliga, a Samoan, is moaning that Lotuliga is remaining on the Manukau Auckland City Council while remaining an MP.

Still smarting that she is not a constituent MP as National overturned a huge majority, she ropes in a Samoan Labour MP Su'a William Sio to comment on her media release. Sio happened to be on the Manukau City Council when he was elected to Parliament, in fact he was the Deputy Mayor at the time.

He says that after he got elected to Parliament he resigned from the council immediately because it was impossible to do justice to both jobs. Immediately.

Trouble is, he didn't, as he finally admitted to me today. He did not immediately resign.

He only resigned from the Deputy Mayoralty a week after he become an MP but he did not resign from the Council for five weeks as Whale Oil also noted.

Yet he has the cheek to criticise Lotuliga for not resigning from the council, as he said he did. Even though he didn't. That must make him a liar. And a hypocrite. He stayed on the council to help choose the deputy mayor, when he was supposed to be in Parliament.

"Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is not fulfilling his Council role," noted Beaumont, concerningly. Beaumont couldn't care less whether he was fulfilling his council role, she was just pissed off that she got thrashed at the election after expecting to easily win. So she wheels out a fellow Samoan Labour MP who also happened to be on an Auckland area council when he become an MP as an example of what should happen - only for him to lie in the media release hoping that nobody noticed.

Well, we did notice. WhaleOil also remembered that no less than five Labour MPs have been MPs while working their council roles and calls them Class A hypocrites.

I asked Su'a William Sio to immediately advise whey he said he "immediately resigned" when he resigned six weeks later. I have yet to receive a response. Perhaps a response will be forthcoming in six weeks.

Hat tip WhaleOil

Labour breaches advertising standards

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Labour's "John and John" campaign ads and has ruled they carry misleading information because it says that John Key wants to cut Kiwi Saver in half.

I recon that all Labour's ads contain misleading information - the image of Helen Clark looks nothing like her. Totally misleading. And this election is about trust.

But if you want a laugh, check out the brand new WhaleOil video - made tonight - of the two Helens.

Helen Clark's pants are really on fire

After Helen Clark and John Key blamed their respective chiefs of staff for decisions not to include the minor parties in the TV3 debates, it is revealed that Clark lied again. It was her decision to have the minor parties out of the debate and she spoke to Key and convinced him that it was a good idea.

This election about trust. The only thing you can trust Helen Clark to do is lie.

Tainted love from a two faced prick

Helen Clark has said that the process of investigation into Winston Peters donations saga has been tainted from the outset, and MPs on the privileges committee have already made up their minds as to whether Winston Peters s guilty or not. She said the Privileges Committee will provide nothing to justify Peter's reinstatement.

Helen Clark says the privileges committee process has been totally unsatisfactory in terms of any natural justice. She says for that reason she is unlikely to be forced into a decision over Winston Peters this week.

What utter crap. She is purposely misleading, as she later states she "very much doubts" that the committee process would do anything to reinstate Peters to his ministerial portifolios.

Well, duh, of course the committee process won't have any influence on whether Peters is reinstated or not. He was stood down because of a SFO investigation, and so a decision on reinstatement won't be made until this process has taken its course, if the Clark standard of Ministerial responsibility and dictatorship continues.

So while criticising MPs for predetermining the privileges committee outcome she has decided to publicly state - before the privileges committee report is out - that she will not sack Peters, as if the "natural justice" - or lack of it, had a significant bearing on her decision.

Helen Clark is a two faced prick. She also acts above the law.

A mistake - yeah right

I very much doubt that the non declaration of the $50,000 donation to NZ First as mentioned in a previous post was an administative mistake.. Perhaps being found out was the mistake. Anyone who had looked at the Spencer Trust account would know about this money going to NZ First - including Winston Peters as soon as he became " aware" of the Trust. The fact that NZ First has claimed to have only a couple of donations over $10,000 over the past 10 or so years does not sound convincing as the bank statement from the Spencer Trust shows three in as many weeks.

Now that we know that there is a donation that was not declared, will Helen Clark comment on this illegal behavior, or is illegality only deemed to be wrong if one is able to be prosecuted? I wonder how much money that should have been declared to Electoral Authorities was part of the repayment of $158,000 that was sitting in a NZ First bank account generating interest fora year before being distributed to undisclosed charities?

I'd be willing to bet that there have been no donations under $10,000 that went to the Spencer Trust as this trust appears to be set up for the purpose of subverting electoral laws.That is not a mistake - but I wonder how many other administrative mistakes were made.

Update Helen Clark and Winston Peters are refusing to comment on Winston Peters' lies to the public and to the PM - leaving other NZ First MPs to do the talking. Clark knew Peters lied from early days - she certainly knows now that he lied - but she doesn't want to seek the "innocent explanation" she claims is the answer to solving this, because she knows there is no innocent explanation.