Of Cabbages & Kings & other matters of import.

While one does not normally support Winston Peters the events of the past few weeks reveal one thing - Winston has a problem - a very 21st century problem - that judgements are now made on perceptions rather than hard, substantive evidence.

While, for sometime, Winston has managed to bluff and bluster to position himself as the "people's champion" for didn't he stand up to Muldoon and, on a matter of principle, resign the National Party to stand for Tauranga to demonstrate the electorate's support for that principle he is now being tried by a jury of his"peers" and the media on an issue of principle.

Would you trust the country to these men?
The National Party shadow cabinet discussing what to do with Winston.

Unfortunately for Winston the substantive issue - Did he or did he not have to declare the donation of $100,000 that went into his legal fighting fund - has become "Did he or did he not know about the donation being solicited and paid into his lawyer's trust account?"

For his peers and the media it is easier to pillory Winston on the latter issue because he chose to grandstand a series of denials of knowledge of such largesse being extended to him. In such a manner the substantive issue isobscured and lost.

One is lead to conclude that the issue of should the $100,000 be declared will not be decided by the media or by the jury of Winston's peers because, in the public perception, the outcome has already been decided - guilt by association and a decision by John Key not to deal with Winston in the event of a close call in November.

For John Key is attempting to build up aperception of being a decisive, principled and strong individual as opposed to a person who takes a more measured, calmer, more rational approach to decision making.

To do this he and hisadvisers have adopted the "chicken licken" approach to political debate... to shout that the sky has fallen despite all evidence to the contrary on the basisthat given a loud enough shout the echo will become the evidence.

Of course John Key is familiar with such a strategy as that is precisely how the money speculators in organisations like Merrill Lynch operate in order to drive the speculation on the money or commodities they're gambling on up or down in speculative value and thusgain profit for themselves or companies they work for.

These decisions are not based on sound judgement from substantive evidence. It isjudgement based on perception, on image, on the loudest shout, on a chimera which, once accepted by others in the market, can cause a collapse of the whole artifical construct the money speculator (gambler) has built up. One only has to lok at the collapse of companies like Merrill Lynch ( a past employer of John Key ) to witness the fallacy of speculation on perception.

All of which leaves the N.Z. voter with two important questions " shouldn't we expect more from the N.Z. media when reporting and recording events than we are presently getting?" and "can we, as a nation, afford to allow ourselves to be governed by one whose judgements and reputation are made on perception and image rather than hard, substantive evidence?"

Rodney, Winston & the Bull Pen

Over the past few months we have been treated to the sight of two bulls competing for dominance in the bull pen - Rodney the upstart and Winston the twice anointed king-maker.

At stake is the right to decide which of the two big parties will form the government at the end of this year. Hide sees himself in that role as witnessed by the ACT party pamphlets distributed around the country in recent months.

This means that the donation saga is not about faulty book-keeping, not about poor management and inadequate systems within the N.Z.First machine. It is not about Owen Glenn's generousity to either N.Z.First or the Labour Party. It is about Winston Peters and his political survival. It is about the manipulation of the political landscape in an MMP environment.

Hide, whose motivations on the political field can be questioned, has set out to destroy Peters in the interests, he says, of ensuring stable government in New Zealand. (Morning Report interview. august 2008). For stable government read one supported by ACT and none other.
Hence the constant barrage of innuendo, of demands for Privileges Committee interrogations, of Police investigations and SFO inquiries coupled with theatrical presentations of files to various authorities in front of cameras and supporters. Hide's campaign strategy is to throw allegation after allegation at Peters in the knowledge that eventually a crack will appear or a daub of mud will stick so that guilt by implication can be established and the "crime" elevated to credibility.

For Peters, the problem has been one of his own character fault, a propensity to bluff and bluster when confronted with a barrage of questions. It is this character fault that cracked. It was this fault that allowed the daub of mudto stick. It was this fault that Hide has manipulated to his advantage over the past few months as he campaigns to exert his right to be seen as the new stud in the Bull-pen of Parliament.

If Peters had paused, reflected and analysed his position on the issue he was challenged on he may have responded in a more considered and strategically advantageous manner. But that isn't his nature and Hide knows it.

If Peters had admitted and provided evidence that monies had been sought and paid to N.Z. First through whatever vehicle and that the monies had been fully accounted for he would have not found himself in the ignominious position he is presently in. For now his position as an "honorable member" whose word must be, by statute, taken as true is called to question.

In the face of the evidence presented by Glenn to the Privileges committee Peters will now have to prove that his position is and always has been that of a truthful and honorable member. If he cannot prove that, if he resorts to the bluff and bluster, he will be found wanting and his political demise, so long predicted, will be assured. However, he won't he destroyed by an accounting failure. He won't be destroyed by faulty management processes. He won't be destroyed by his strange relationship with his lawyer. He will be destroyed by his own character faults for that is Peter's hubris and that is what Hide has exploited throughout this whole sorry saga.