KEY POINTS:
Dear oh dear. Can the Winston Peters saga get any more complicated? The story began with reports of cheques magically appearing into his lawyer's trust account ostensibly to pay Winston's legal bills.
First, the wealthy racing enthusiasts, the Velas, were identified as donors; then the mercurial millionaire, Bob Jones and finally the Monaco millionaire, Owen Glenn.
In all cases, Peters has held up his hands and protested, like Sergeant Schultz, that he knows nothing. Bob Jones said Winston asked for some dosh at a party; Winston says that's not what he remembers.
Owen Glenn says Winston rang him and asked him for a donation towards his fighting fund; Winston says that is not his recollection. At all times, Winston plays the victim card.
The only principled man in Parliament, the one his supporters elected "to keep them all honest"; besieged by a ravenous, biased media who want to bring him down because he's the only one who stands up to "them" - them appearing to be an overarching term for anyone richer, more well-travelled, more sophisticated and/or more educated than the supporter.
John Key threw the dice like a currency trader and said he wouldn't have Winston in his Cabinet; then, showing he's learned a political trick or two, he gave himself some wriggle room and allowed that should Winston redeem himself, he'd consider horse trading with New Zealand First's leader.
Then Helen Clark revealed she had known since February that Glenn had donated 100 grand to go towards Peters' legal fees because Glenn had told her so at the opening of Auckland University's business school.
When asked why she hadn't reported the matter to the Privileges Committee herself, she said it was a case of two conflicting stories and she'd accepted the word of an honourable member, as is the convention. Which must mean that she doesn't believe the word of her benefactor who, by implication, is generous but not honourable. Or else she does believe Glenn's word but she had to support Peters because she needed Peters more than she needed Glenn this year.
I suppose too the casting aside of Glenn makes sense because his cheques were banked. New Zealand First's support on Labour legislation throughout the year has been, and indeed still is, on hire purchase.
And now the Serious Fraud Office is investigating. I used to think the world of Winston, but it's been a long time since I found him principled or amusing. His posturing that New Zealand First is the only party not to sully its hands with trust funds and big money donations can be seen for what it is - bullshit.
And yet it was all so unnecessary. If Peters had been honest and upfront from day one, who would have cared?
People in the racing industry can surely support Peters just as those from the unions support Labour and the Business Roundtable supports National. Where's the harm in declaring you're acting in the interests of specific groups within New Zealand? It's only Peters' hubris that has exposed him to charges of hypocrisy at best; lying at worst. And still his dyed in the wool supporters continue to believe in him.
On Wednesday night, I had one mad old tart ring me up and tell me I had to be careful. She wouldn't like to see anything happen to me but I had to be very, very careful. She was recording every word and I should watch my step. "You're not going to kill me are you?" I asked flippantly. There was a long pause. "I hope not," she said. "That's all I can say."
The other two who rang in support of him made me yearn for the introduction of a meritocracy.
Still, you can't fault their loyalty. Or maybe it's as Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in that blueprint for rulers, The Prince: "Princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles. Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived."
In this, Winston seems to have cornered the market.
