My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Game On! | Main | TGIF Edition online »



The Cabinet manual is a constitution convention. If it is not followed there are no sanctions.The Cabinet Office officials responsible for working with the Manual are responsible to the Prime Minister and the Governor-General for its content, for applying its guidance to particular fact situations, and for policy related to the Manual. SO Helen Clark can do what she likes as if she does not follow the cabinet manual there is not much anyone can do about it.

Winston did not follow the Cabinet manual guidelines - Helen Clark doesnt care - or as she would say "diddums"

mark luck

What an absolute bloody joke... how much more of this BS are we going to have to take from Clark and her corrupt sidekick??


It's all about trust.

Helen is a liar.

You can trust her to lie.


To answer the question - no. We're all so looking forward to it that it has been predicted about a dozen times over the last few months, and every time we're denied our schadenfreude. But no. The only way this will happen is if firing Winston has a net benefit over the poop storm he'll unleash as a result, and that doesn't seem likely.


It would be in best interests of Winston Peters if he broke free from the Govt going into the election campaign.

That way he could campaign as a genuine 3rd party without concerns about collective responsibility of Cabinet. For this reason I can see no possibility of him rejoining Cabinet.

It is really hilarious to see all the anti-Helen-Clark fans saying what she needs to do. Memo to the fundamentalists - you are not actually in her target group!!

John Boy are not actually in her target group!!

True, and she's losing so who cares.


The hounds in parliament are fixated on cornering Peters. I have come to the conclusion that were any political party to be scrutinised for not allegedly declaring a donation they are likely to be just where Peters finds himself to be. Others are very likely to not have really considered or to be confused about operating a separate trust which receives donations, which either stays in the trust or is then passed on as being a party fund. It was lawful for Peters to receive the 100 K in December 2005 and due to the time lapse, no further action can be taken on it not being declared. It is not an offence to say "NO". Parliament needs to relegislate on political party trusts and political party funds because the issue of party trusts/funding is just going to jam up the house when it sits.

Let the voter decide Peters fate.

The comments to this entry are closed.