Winston Peters - our 6 Weeks PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Winston Peters - our 6 Weeks PM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2064133 28-Jul-2018 15:07

gzt: Which question did he not answer, specifically? It should be easy to find the Hansard on that. I'd like to know.

All of them.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2064243 28-Jul-2018 17:13

gzt: Thanks for looking that up frednz. I see you have not included the answers Peters made to those questions. He did answer those questions, replying that the details are commercially confidential. Clearly those answers were not satisfactory to you and you chose not to include them.

Rather than fill up Geekzone with a whole lot of Peter's irrelevant hot air, I quoted the only relevant answer Peters gave to Paul Goldsmith's questions which was:

Now, having said that, there is a clear delineation of value to both the owners in the trust and the Government, and that is in a document which, as a commercial document, is confidential.

The question is, should this matter be regarded as confidential when it involves expenditure of public money?

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2064381 28-Jul-2018 21:38

Same argument was used for Saudi sheep farms, how did you feel about that?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2064387 28-Jul-2018 21:58

frednz:

When "answering" questions from the Opposition in Parliament, why does Winston Peters have to treat Opposition members in such a smug and high-handed manner? For example, he said to both Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett recently something to the effect that the National Party is about to replace them as Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party.

I don't know why Speaker Trevor Mallard doesn't step in when such comments are made.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12096998

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12097023

Well, Winston's at it again, attacking Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett saying Bridges "won't last long".

From The Herald:

It comes after Peters took aim at National leader Simon Bridges this morning, predicting he would not be in the job for long and mocking him for what Peters said was a belated discovery that he was Māori and liberal, advocating matters such as medicinal marijuana reform.

Speaking on Newshub's The Nation, Peters said Bridges had discovered much of his past "a bit like Columbus discovered America – by accident".

"All of a sudden he's going to be a liberal … all of a sudden he decides that he is a Māori. Nobody knew that before he got there. Then he starts looking for his iwi. And now he has discovered marijuana.

Peters said National's deputy leader Paula Bennett would be first to go, because "that's what jackals do. They don't go for the big animal. They go for the smallest and weakest one. And then it will be Simon.

So what's the purpose of these attacks by Winston on Bridges and Bennett? What's got into him, why can't he show some professionalism for a change? Is this really appropriate behaviour from the acting Prime Minister?

In reply, National Party President Peter Goodfellow has mounted an attack on Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters, saying National had "dodged a whisky-swilling, cigarette-smoking, double-breasted and irrational bullet".

Speaking at the National Party conference, Goodfellow said that in hindsight National had a lucky escape in Peters' decision to side with Labour after the election last year and to send National into Opposition.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2064394 28-Jul-2018 22:11

frednz:

Well, Winston's at it again, attacking Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett saying Bridges "won't last long".

He's got a point though.

National is polling 40%. Bridges is polling 10%. That means 3/4 of national supporters don't want him as leader.

What we know from history on both sides is that he will persist with everyone claiming he has their full support - then at the dismal election results he will suddenly be gone.

But who will replace him?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7