Comments on: Espiner on National’s hypocrisy

By: randal

randal — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:14:26 +0000

so then wht is the price of democracy…is this all the whingers have got to go on about. we have turned into a nation of niggardly scrooges worrying about chump change instead of the goals and directions of the country… al this led by the little money counters in the press who haven’t got enough yet themselves, never done anything in their lives yet still profess tio be the conscience of the nation…what a larf…and spineless is the worst of the lot!

By: Matthew Pilott

Matthew Pilott — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:10:22 +0000

“The only ‘scandal’ was Mike Williams’ confusion about whether a loan counted as a donation.’

You missed the “Yeah right’.

Classic stuff form Santi – he uses the only form of wit lower than sarcasm, the ‘yeah right’, and follows up with:

You must try harder, James. Your feeble defense doesn’t sound credible, but considering you’re a loyal Labour supporter

That’s gotta be a joke, right?

By: r0b

r0b — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:13:11 +0000

Cheers rOb, but there’s no guarantee that my “tory charity’ will extend past midnight tonight!

So noted, we remain ancestral enemies then!

And to your closing comment, agreed.

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:20:08 +0000

“So noted, we remain ancestral enemies then!”

In the nicest possible way!!

By: r0b

r0b — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:13:37 +0000

Totally off-topic, but did anyone else know that it’s Helen Clark’s 58th birthday today – what I’ve written may surprise!

Nicely written Iv2, bravo. Welcome to what some of us have known for the last many years.

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:08:39 +0000

Cheers rOb, but there’s no guarantee that my “tory charity” will extend past midnight tonight!

I do believe though that one of the biggest weaknesses of our media-driven political scene is that we seldom see the person behind the mask – and I believe that applies right across the political specturm.

By: Santi

Santi — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:50:01 +0000

“The only ‘scandal’ was Mike Williams’ confusion about whether a loan counted as a donation.”

You missed the “Yeah right”.

You must try harder, James. Your feeble defense doesn’t sound credible, but considering you’re a loyal Labour supporter….

By: James Kearney

James Kearney — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:31:53 +0000

But Glenn as you can see from the list of Labour’s anonymous donations above they don’t see it as a sin- they just don’t want our system to be overwhelmed by them especially after the dodgyness of the 2005 election.

There was nothing illegal or immoral in Owen Glenn’s donation and at $8,000 value it was below the declaration limit. The only ‘scandal’ was Mike Williams’ confusion about whether a loan counted as a donation.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:08:55 +0000

You (and possibly Colin) miss the point spectacularly. National aren’t claming to be lily white on this, but they do have grounds to make political capital out of Labour’s hypocrisy. Labour crusaded all last year on campaign finance transparency, adopting a holier-than-thou stance with endless references to “hollow men’ and “big money’ and they’ve been caught out. National don’t consider anonymous donations a sin. Labour claim they do, and now they’re proven guilty of their (non-)crime.

Imagine National winning the 2005 election and not delivering tax cuts. Labour would have every right to make political mileage out of it, not because they would deliver tax cuts, but because National made it so central to their political identity.

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:17:57 +0000

Totally off-topic, but did anyone else know that it’s Helen Clark’s 58th birthday today – what I’ve written may surprise!

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/happy-birthday-helen.html

By: AncientGeek

AncientGeek — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:57:38 +0000

I’d fully support a fully transparent donation system.

I can’t see any reason to have anonymous significant donations for any party.

By: Policy Parrot

Policy Parrot — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:57:22 +0000

To the ACC-haters:

Not everyone can afford to take legal action morons, especially considering if they are out of work…
ACC needs to move with the times, granted, but you should never throw out the baby with the bath water.

How can people expect to survive, let alone win a case that typically is not open and shut? The only people who win from such cases are the employers (who are more likely to get off – at least in civil cases), and lawyers.

Many foreign people I’ve spoken to think our “no-fault” system is the best in the world, and if by the way, if you wish to sue, you can still agree not to undertake cover provided by ACC in hope of discretionary damages granted through a criminal prosecution.

By: infused

infused — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:16:35 +0000

ACC is shiat, purely because we have lost the right to so sue.

By: r0b

r0b — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:12:15 +0000

Higherstandard – what relevance does the watersiders dispute have to the current situation? 50 years later the world has changed, its a different battle entirely. Unionists on this blog have spelled out the reasons for their support. Why not read through a few back issues?

In the mean time, the focus in this thread is Espiner highlighting National’s hypocrisy over its secret “anonymous” donors.

By: r0b

r0b — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:02:17 +0000

By bye [sic] Helen: where’s that evidence then?

Are you new at this BBH?

http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html