[lprent: goodbye dave]

And now the focus can legitimately go on Nationals dodgy dealings

Personaly I wish the media would focus on the difference between all the parties policies or lack of them
Isn’t that what they are there for?

Dan is quite right. Glenn was totally at ease, no PR parroting, just saying what he thought. He was happy to relay that KORRUPT conversation he had with KLARK about being in KABINET, which turns out to be … absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, at least one journalist has worked out there are questions National is hiding from: here’s Colin Espiner’s blog:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national

Next week: Nats’ big donors front up to be interviewed on Campbell Live. Or … not.

I never said this was of any great consequence.

“It raises more questions at present than it answers and it is time Glenn gave answers.”

I’ll calm down when she demands that Bell Gully, McVeigh and everyone else “gave answers” as to who all the Nats backers were. She’s a disgrace.

Insider – if you’re right then Williams has put his foot in it a wee bit. If not, then it’s equally inconsequential. Either way, given that Labour is declearing it, there’s very little substance, and seems to show how desperate National is to divert the house from discussing policy.

“It is hard to get through to Glenn to ask him directly … his personal assistant has been engaged every time I have rung.”

And yet John Key is right there in the building with you.

“It is important to get fuller disclosure on this, not least to ensure that mud does not stick where it is not warranted.”

It is important to get full disclosure on John Key’s donations to the National Party, not least to ensure that mud does not stick where it is not warranted.

“If Glenn is not the NZ First donor it should be simple enough to say so.”

If Key has made no anonymous donations to National it should be simple enough to say so.

the 1993 law was in my view clear as Graeme Edgeler has demonstrated, and backed up by recent case law – Peters v Clarkson.

I would have thought that if anyone should have been clear what the rules are it is the person primarily responsible for the party’s finances (if he was doing his job properly). I have a similar view of the NAts ‘forgetting’ to pay GST.

I think Mike Williams has a history of saying what is convenient at the time and worrying about the clean up later.

Insider – I don’t believe the 1993 EFA was as clear as the 2007 iteration – nice that the new law is making things more clear. Seems the right just loves it, right about now

So you think it’s likely that Williams deliberately lied, as opposed to not considering that it wasn’t a donation under 1993 electoral law? I guess that’s what you’re saying, but it seems…unlikely, to say the least. Still, a bet-up’s a beat-up, as you do…

I think the law is clear that you use a commercial rate. Could be mortgage rate, could be the finance rate for business loans (whihc is usually higher and given the status of labour;s finances….) Not hard to work out, partiuclarly if Labour has got commercial loans before.

Given Mike Williams’ behaviour in the past, I don;t think it is too hard a stretch to think he might have lied.