Hilarious but not intentionally

Readers will have followed how Winston denied on Agenda that he had ever used a helicopter for campaigning, and within hours photos of him doing just that emerged.

Well here is what he now says:

It is difficult to believe, but just five days from polling day and we are having to waste time talking about past campaigns and helicopters! This is just another media sideshow to divert voters from the real issues they face.

Actually the issue is whether you sold policy for use of the helicopter.

New Zealand First has used helicopters for travel during two election campaigns – but not for campaigning itself.

Oh, of course a vital difference. It only provided travel so you could campaign, but did not campaign itself. And here was me thinking the helicopter was actualyl going to front up and deliver the speech also.

The way a question was framed on Agenda yesterday implied that we had used a helicopter to campaign from, which of course was ridiculous because of the physical impossibility of speaking to crowds in a noisy gale.

Indeed that is ridiculous, which is why no one would interpret it that way. Everyone knows what was meant was did you have free use of a helicopter (normally $1,000+ an hour) for your travel for the election campaign.

We used a helicopter to travel and I do not deny that, but to suggest that I somehow stood at the door of a flying helicopter shouting at voters is preposterous. We were campaigning – not deerstalking!

It would almost be funny, if it were not for the very serious issues around why the helicopter was donated. That is the real issue – are the Meurant documents correct that there was a quid pro quo?