Give us the names or pay the money back, John

157 comments on “Give us the names or pay the money back, John ”

• Comments are now closed

1. finbar 1

   8 March 2014 at 12:04 pm

   And was it not a soft cock interview, considering the harrowing interview Gower, had with Cunliffe, last week.
2. quartz 2

   8 March 2014 at 12:05 pm

   I heard a rumour that at least two companies with government contracts bought tables and then sent guests along so the donations were split up into undisclosable chunks.
3. captain hook 3

   8 March 2014 at 12:09 pm

   Okay then. $165,000 is a nice chunk of change as they say in Mafia movies but after he has explained that hen he needs to explain how he made $90,000,000 working for someone else. That is a grotesque amount of money for someone who never actually produced anything tangible.
   • PapaMike 3.1

     8 March 2014 at 1:56 pm

     Where do you get $90 million from – I though it was more like half that $40 – $50 million.
     What is your source please.
     • travellerev 3.1.1

       9 March 2014 at 4:24 pm

       That number is floating around for some reason but nobody can give a link to where that might be found. Officially it is between $ 40-50 million. Still a ridiculous amount of money for selling fraudulent financial instruments to unsuspecting pension funds and the likes. Something he knew perfectly well as he confesses to it on breakfast TV a while ago.

       However I’m sure his blind trust fund has been buying gold and military industrial complex industry shares like there is no tomorrow for him making tuns of money and possibly via political inside info about global developments making tons of profit for him. Insider trading is after all perfectly legal when you’re an American “law maker”.
4. captain hook 4

   8 March 2014 at 12:10 pm

   Key is getting shiftier and shiftier by the day.
   • finbar. 4.1

     8 March 2014 at 5:39 pm

     And did not John,in his way, sort of sneered,be warned,”the sneaky line,that!s our!s” sneaky indeed is John!s culture.
5. Colonial Viper 5

   8 March 2014 at 12:17 pm

   The NATs can raise serious money at the drop of a dinner fork.
   • Skinny 5.1

     8 March 2014 at 3:55 pm

     And in the scheme of things it’s still loose change in their deep pockets.

     Meanwhile over at the Labour Party every film evening, wine auction, potluck dinner, the rank and file dip into their wallets, a $5, $10, $20, what one can afford. Over the course of 3 years a functioning electorate committee raises the dough for an election campaign. That’s the reality in the poor house, it’s honest hard toil. When you hear of the rarity of large donations it’s usually the academic types, some in business, other who have made a bob and are donating to level the injustice of inequality. Something the greedy right donator would no nothing about, because it takes a social conscience
6. You_Fool 6

   8 March 2014 at 12:21 pm

   John Key doesn’t have to do any such thing. Transparency and honesty are for other people…
   • geoff 6.1

     8 March 2014 at 1:48 pm

     That’s right, baby, Key is an elitist hypocrite! National, the party of double standards.
     • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1.1

       8 March 2014 at 2:04 pm

       …which is exactly why the National Party are spending so much time and energy into falsely accusing everyone else of being hypocrites – hoping to distract the public from one of their own (out of many) major failings –
7. fender 7

   8 March 2014 at 12:35 pm

   That guy in the swimming pool, a Vladimir Putin wannabe, has his own set of rules (and they’re only guidelines after all).

   And hypocrisy is not a word to be found in any National Party dictionary.
8. RedLogix 8

   8 March 2014 at 12:55 pm

   Interestingly Key really cannot see the blatant double-standard at work here.

   Politics in this country have been doing one set of rules for the Tories and another for the Left for so long that they’ve become blind to it.
   • weka 8.1

     8 March 2014 at 3:08 pm

     Kinds of makes sense though. Labour (and the GP) claim to have ethics, so when they do something that looks unethical they should be held to account. New National don’t have ethics, so there is no problem when they do something unethical.

     The big question is why so many NZers still vote for them. My current theory is that a big chunk of NZers have no fucking clue about politics or what is going on. They see the soundbite on TV and go with that.
     • Blue 8.1.1

       8 March 2014 at 4:05 pm

       It’s ironic isn’t it? The media have been thrashing Labour for ‘hypocrisy’, but they can never get National on that argument because National have never opposed using trusts or anonymous donors and they never will.

       If you have morals but supposedly fail to live up to them you get demonised worse than if you freely admit you’ve never had any in the first place.
       • Arfamo 8.1.1.1

         8 March 2014 at 4:19 pm

         Having no morals to start with creates no expectation you will abide by them, so there’s nothing out of order for anyone to focus on. Claiming you have morals and then getting caught out not abiding by them on the other hand is blood in the water for the sharks with no morals AND the people who thought you were living up to those morals. It does a lot of damage to credibility. Apologising afterwards doesn’t really remove the stain.
     • Sjlmass 8.1.2

       8 March 2014 at 8:30 pm

       amen – the revolution will not be televised brother
     • floyd 8.1.3

       8 March 2014 at 10:36 pm

       Weka. So true.?
9. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 9

   8 March 2014 at 1:01 pm

   Would they be:

   Pfizer pharmaceutical company
   British American Tobacco
   Large NZ casino operators [Sky city?]
   Lobby groups for privatisation of the Health and Education sectors
   Right wing think tanks such as ‘The Maxim Institute’
   Developers (the types who consider the long term considerations that RMA requires to be involved in the design of new buildings and businesses so as to avoid problems in the future as annoying nuisances that get in between them and their profits)
   [A] ‘Small and distinct group [that] comes mostly from the radical right of New Zealand politics and business’ (I would understand them to be the type who could afford and be keen on shares in privatised assets such as power companies)

   These were some of those mentioned who were attending such dinners in 2005 in Nicky Hagar’s ‘The Hollow Men’ [p219 onwards]
10. greywarbler 10

    8 March 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Sleek as a seal isn’t he. Smooth and fast moving in whatever medium he is in. Seals I understand are not actually slippery, they have a useful protective coating that’s quite robust.
    • Skinny 10.1

      8 March 2014 at 3:25 pm

      Greywarbler Key’s is Teflon which is only good for 6 years, finally things are beginning to stick.
      • greywarbler 10.1.1

        8 March 2014 at 7:19 pm

        Does that Teflon come with a firm guarantee? Engineered with planned obsolescence! If only.
11. felix 11

    8 March 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Akshully Zet, according to Key’s own logic he has to pay the money back AND name the donors. That’s what he’s demanding Cunliffe do.
12. TightyRighty 12

    8 March 2014 at 1:35 pm

    Durr Durr Durr but he did it too
    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.1

      8 March 2014 at 1:52 pm

      Yes Tighty Righty – the whole time that Key was saying such things like:

      “David Cunliffe has a responsibility to make sure he tells the public who the other two are or he’s going to labelled as having a secret agenda which none of us can verify one way or the other.

      He knew full well that his Party has been doing the thing he was accusing Cunliffe of.

      Key has just let us all know that he understands the public are justified in labelling National as having a secret agenda – which is just as well because it is clear for those with eyes to see that his activities since being in government show he does work with an agenda other than what he claims. He is not working in the interests of the greatest number of NZers at all.

      Now that is becoming all the more apparent.

      Own goal Mr Key
    • geoff 12.2

      8 March 2014 at 1:57 pm

      Your man Key takes after you Tighty, he’s completely full of shit.
    • felix 12.3

      8 March 2014 at 2:03 pm

      The above comment contains not a trace of irony. Astounding.
      • RedLogix 12.3.1

        8 March 2014 at 2:09 pm

        No you all miss the point. On thinking about it over bit there are only two possibilities here:

        Either Key and the Nats really cannot see the double standard at work here.

        OR

        The understand it perfectly and are flouting it in out faces. Mocking the Left’s inability to do anything about it.
13. Rob 13

    8 March 2014 at 1:39 pm

    By your statement

    By Key’s logic he now has to either pay back the $165k – and all the other secret dinner money – or name the donors

    , can you link to where Key demanded Cunliffe pay his donations back?

    [lprent: There is a link in the post. Did you read the post? If you didn’t read the post before making this comment, then perhaps you should.

    Moderating you until you confirm that you have read the post or you explain this comment that makes it look like you have not. For instance where is the “demand” you are referring to.

    I suspect that you’re astroturfing and you get a weeks ban. This may become permanent if you don’t provide an explanation of your behaviour.

    I really don’t like idiots with diversion games. ]
    • geoff 13.1

      8 March 2014 at 1:55 pm

      Who said demand? Oh that’s right, only you.
      If Key doesn’t pay the money back or name the donors he is, by his own logic, being very fucking tricky indeed.
      • Rob 13.1.1

        8 March 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Geoff, Key did not ask Cunliffe to pay the money back, that decision was made presumably by Cunliffe’s , although GP probably had some say in it. P

        The two secret doners are still secret , they have just had their money returned presumably because they did not want to be outed.
        • You_Fool 13.1.1.1

          8 March 2014 at 2:15 pm

          Ok, so Key has no choice then, he has to name the doners. Also to keep up with Cinliffe’s standards he ALSO has to pay the money back,
          • Rob 13.1.1.1.1

            8 March 2014 at 2:19 pm

            Keep ‘up” with Cunliffe’s standards , LOL.
            • RedLogix 13.1.1.1.1.1

              8 March 2014 at 2:40 pm

              The two secret doners are still secret , they have just had their money returned presumably because they did not want to be outed.

              Which given that they had donated under terms of confidentiality then it would be completely and utterly wrong for Cunliffe to ‘out’ them. It remains absolutely their right to remain anonymous in these circumstances.

              Assigning underhand motives for them wanting to assert that right is entirely baseless.
              • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                8 March 2014 at 4:30 pm

                I can name one of the doners – one is called kebab. Shish it’s a secret.
      • Rob 13.1.2

        8 March 2014 at 2:11 pm

        Geoff, who is being tricky anyway. Cunliffe was trying to hide his doners from his own party, the one he was wanting to lead and now is.

        Forget this transparency crap that dribbles out of his mouth on a daily basis, he failed to declare to his own side at the first major test. The other issue is he is being backed by vey big NZ business and a major US consulting firm that outsourced thousands of NZ manufacturing jobs to Asia.

        Yeah keep defending him Geoff , as you obviously see him as a walking , talking example of modern Labour party values.
        • RedLogix 13.1.2.1

          8 March 2014 at 2:16 pm

          Cunliffe was trying to hide his doners from his own party,

          His own Party rule required him to. Idiot.
          • Rob 13.1.2.1.1

            8 March 2014 at 2:18 pm

            What the one that Jones and the other guy (forgotten his name) followed?
            • RedLogix 13.1.2.1.1.1

              8 March 2014 at 2:31 pm

              Exactly. None of the other two had a donation over the $500 limit.

              All three candidates followed their Party rules exactly. If they had not you would have been sticking it to them for that.

              The only issue here was that no-one thought through how to reconcile this Party rule with an entirely separate Parliamentary rule around the Register of Pecuniary interests. In fact it’s not all that obvious that the Parliamentary rule applies at all.

              After all Parties have been accepting donations via secret trusts for ages and Mr Key thinks that’s perfectly ok.

              You really cannot have this one both ways Rob.
              • Matthew Hooton …

                8 March 2014 at 4:35 pm

                That is incorrect. My understanding is that Shane did receive a donation of over $500 and has declared it on the parliamentary register. We will know for sure when it is published. The only reason the Cunliffe story became news at this time is because of a leak (presumably from someone who saw his return to Labour head office, or from one of the five donors. Can’t think where else it could have come from.)
                • Tracey …

                  8 March 2014 at 5:27 pm

                  And your comment on key being hoist on his petard? Saving it for monday when you can say, I agree with patrick gower, the pm is being tricky.
                • Skinny …

                  8 March 2014 at 10:55 pm

                  The problem with you Hooton is your a fanatical right-wing lunatic. You have the the nerve to come on here spouting about nickel and dime donations, when you know full well the opposition party’s get chump change compared to NACT. Your not on here for the benefit of us, your on here to spin bulkshit so the likes of Garner, Gower, Henry and all the other useless jurno’s can follow up the spin in their daily diatribe of snake oil. I look forward to the day our paths cross face to face. I will do countless people a favour wink*
                  • rhinocrates …

                    8 March 2014 at 11:02 pm

                    Looks like Hooton, like the cockroach that he is, has scuttled under the fridge again when the kitchen light was turned on. Don’t expect an answer.
        • You_Fool 13.1.2.2

          8 March 2014 at 2:21 pm

          Not to ruin your fantasy, and I am only going on what Cunliffe said in the press, but wasn’t the way he took donations for his leadership race the way that Labour requires him to do so? I.e. he was hiding nothing from the party, because they didn’t want to know?
        • geoff 13.1.2.3

          8 March 2014 at 2:22 pm

          Rob, I’m not defending Cunliffe, I’m attacking Key for being a tricky, lying hypocrite.
          Keep up, thicko.
          • RedLogix 13.1.2.3.1

            8 March 2014 at 2:35 pm

            Well I am defending Cunliffe because he was doing exactly what was required of him. You tell me what he was supposed to do differently.

            It’s a lazy, lying, smearing pack of shit media who are the enemy here.
            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.1.2.3.1.1

              8 March 2014 at 3:02 pm

              I would add that this incompetent, disingenious government who do not act in NZers interests – rather for their big-profit-for-a-few donors are the enemy number 1.
    • Rob 13.2

      8 March 2014 at 3:06 pm

      Lprent I saw the link, read it and watched the supporting video. Key has not asked Cunliffe to pay the money back. Cunliffe did this on his own accord. The point being it is not “Keys logic” to out the doners and pay the money.
      • lprent 13.2.1

        8 March 2014 at 3:31 pm

        But there was no “demand” in the post either.

        What there was was a quote from Key of what he thought the alternatives were in the circumstances of taking anonymous donations of greater than $500.

        David Cunliffe has a responsibility to make sure he tells the public who the other two are or he’s going to labelled as having a secret agenda which none of us can verify one way or the other.

        In the linked article, he also said that

        “Clearly there’s something going on there about people who gave money, but know if their identity is in the public domain that that would be very untidy for the Labour Party,” he said this afternoon.

        Which BTW is curious because it was exactly the argument that he rejected when dealing with the anonymous donations from the Waitemata Trust to National. I guess he assumes that these concepts don’t apply to the National party or its politicians.

        Now Zet has said that Key should follow his own advice. Which was what you quoted and called a “demand”.

        You haven’t convinced me that you read more than the posts title. Certainly your other comments in rapid succession directly after the one I noticed (including two others that I trashed) gave evidence that you’d read the post before commenting. However you have explained your position. Ban stands for the week.
        • Matthew Hooton 13.2.1.1

          8 March 2014 at 4:41 pm

          The headline reads pretty much like a demand.
          • Tracey 13.2.1.1.1

            8 March 2014 at 5:30 pm

            And your comment on key being hoist on his petard? Saving it for monday when you can say, I agree with patrick gower, the pm is being tricky.
          • geoff 13.2.1.1.2

            8 March 2014 at 5:33 pm

            Matthew, so aside from that minor issue, you do agree that John Key is being a hypocrite?

            Edit:
            Speaking of headlines, I’m now expecting an NBR piece from you titled: “Secret campaign donations last nail in the coffin for Key?”
            • Matthew Hooton 13.2.1.1.2.1

              8 March 2014 at 5:58 pm

              Keep up. They weren’t secret. They were declared in 2010 and 2011. And they were only declared because they were aggregated. Individual donations to a party below $15k do not need to be disclosed. There really is nothing at all in any of this.
              • RedLogix …

                8 March 2014 at 6:44 pm

                Exactly Mathew. There really was nothing in this.

                Maybe it’s dawning on you that David Cunliffe received five donations for a party political purpose (ie the Labour primary contest) and as was required of him ensured they were channeled through a trust in order to comply with his own Party rules.

                And exactly as National channels many of it’s own donations through trusts and has done so for ages.

                The open question here is whether these donations are also a personal pecuniary interest and therefore need to be declared on the Parliamentary Register as such.

                Shane Jones took the view that in order to be on the safe side they probably were, but then it’s hard to reconcile this with the rule that they should also be anonymous.

                I’m taking the view that they were Party political donations, that Cunliffe did exactly the right thing and a lot of people owe him an abject apology.
          • rhinocrates 13.2.1.1.3

            8 March 2014 at 7:07 pm

            Really Hoots, who the Hell do you think that you’re deceiving? Your gullible clients whom you can tell that you’re a prominent commentator in several fora simply by having attacks of textual diarrhoea? Is this all about brand management, because you’re making a… no, more of a fool of yourself?
            • geoff 13.2.1.1.3.1

              8 March 2014 at 8:00 pm

              +1
14. newsense 14

    8 March 2014 at 2:06 pm

    So Paddy’s saying he knows he can win us back?
    • ianmac 14.1

      8 March 2014 at 2:58 pm

      We will see on TV3 News tonight. Remember last week Paddy only played bits of the Cunliffe interview that put David in a poor light.
      We will judge Paddy tonight when we see if he concentrates on the issues as Zetic outlines above and Mr Key’s shifty response or will he just report on the “easy” stuff from Mr Key.
      • karol 14.1.1

        8 March 2014 at 4:04 pm

        It’ll take longer for me to watch Gower again – I’m looking for consistent fairness and accurate reporting.

        And i want all the media to start focusing on the issues that are important or significant for Kiwis – enough of the political games – that puts too many Kiwis off voting.
15. NZ Jester 15

    8 March 2014 at 3:37 pm

    Why do I get the feeling that John Key while trying to set up a big mousetrap to catch David Cunliffe in accidentally set it off himself and now is trying to wriggle out of it before anyone notices.
16. Anker 16

    8 March 2014 at 3:44 pm

    I have mentioned this before but Fran O’Sullivan who is writing about the issue of DC using a trust for donations refers to it as “laundering” the money into a secret trust account. I think this is scurrilous, because when you refer to money being laundered, it is money gained through criminal acts. This is a nasty implication and it takes distorting what we know to a new low.
    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 16.1

      8 March 2014 at 4:16 pm

      +1 Anker
    • ianmac 16.2

      8 March 2014 at 4:17 pm

      Anker I toyed with commenting on Fran’s page after reading your point about laundering. Decided not to bother as they seem to not be running comments this time. Wonder why not. Wonder if she will use same terms now about Key?
17. nadis 17

    8 March 2014 at 4:01 pm

    I wouldn’t worry about demands that Cunliffe names the two undisclosed donors. They’ll leak out at some point, probably when judged they’ll do the most damage. My guess – perhaps crim-dot-con, more likely individuals representing mining/oil/manufacturing company clients of a certain environmental law firm, firms at the forefront of green initiatives like NZ Refining, Gasbridge, Fonterra, Carter Holt, Genesis, Alinta etc. If it is dot com the fallout will be amazing – he is like a one man typhoid mary – contaminating all he touches.

    The really, really big question that no-one has addressed is who tipped off the journos to the existence of the trusts. Names, amounts, timeline – all very closely held information but somehow leaked. Who? If Cunliffe’s friends in the caucus have this info it will leak, and it will be leaked in order to destabilise at the mos opportune time. Cunliffe clearly assumed the information couldn’t possibly become public, hence his denials to the like of Marcus Lush etc. The execution and timing of the leaker was perfect – wait for the denials then BAM! Like a script from House of Cards.

    The list of people with that info would be very short and starts and finishes with “Friends and colleagues” of Cunliffe. It really wouldn’t be hard for someone close to the issue to identify very quickly who the leaker is or likely to be. Et tu Brutae?
    • karol 17.1

      8 March 2014 at 4:06 pm

      🙄 so much speculation of a biased kind. So little actual information.

      All a journalist would need to do was look at the money declared by Cunliffe and estimate the money spent on his campaign – then calculate the discrepancy and figure what happened.
    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 17.2

      8 March 2014 at 4:10 pm

      🙄 Yep good call Karol I’ll join you there
18. nadis 18

    8 March 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Agreed- pure speculation. But I’d be just as interested if the same thing was happening within national. You do have to wonder how the info got out to the journalists given how closely held it was, and why the complete absence of speculation.

    Karol – how would a journalist connect the dots and come up with the existence of a trust?

    Connect the dots – who would know:

    The donors
    Cunliffe (may not legally know but thats what private chats with no witnesses, phone records or emails are for)
    His trustee(s)
    A couple of people at Labour head office.

    That pretty much narrows down the source of leakers.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1

      8 March 2014 at 4:29 pm

      Who leaked Collins’ corrupt back-hander to the National Party’s clients?
19. finbar 19

    8 March 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Its the elephant in the room,we have reason John,to suspect that those who donated to your campaign are well healed.Corporate players who!s belief are in kin with yours,fair does.It does your cause no good, to dump on your opponent, to cry secrecy and skullduggery when you hide behind, a cloak of unashamed usery,a past life that you have no care to question, as your Governance of your home land, your skullduggery and its legacy shall leave a social scar that will outshine a Hawain rainbow.
20. Matthew Hooton 20

    8 March 2014 at 4:27 pm

    This is an old story, first disclosed by National in 2010, and involves an eccentric restauranteur raising money on his own behalf for National. There is nothing wrong with that. And I don’t really think there was anything wrong with Labour charging people $5000/table to meet Sir Ian McKellen: https://twitter.com/CTrevettNZH/status/442102673890762753/photo/1
    NBR has information on how the Astle fund-raising effort operates: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-under-fire-antoines-donations-ck-152983
    • Ergo Robertina 20.1

      8 March 2014 at 4:43 pm

      The ‘old story’ is an issue now because Key has spent the past week lecturing Cunliffe on his use of secret donations.
    • geoff 20.2

      8 March 2014 at 5:23 pm

      Matthew, you being an ‘neo-conservative ultra’ hollow-man for the National party is an old story but it is still relevant.
      • Ergo Robertina 20.2.1

        8 March 2014 at 5:30 pm

        +1
    • phillip ure 20.3

      8 March 2014 at 5:50 pm

      ..an ‘old story’..

      ..but a good one..

      ..that ‘hollow’-echo is still easily heard..

      ..phillip ure..
    • Pascal's bookie 20.4

      8 March 2014 at 8:50 pm

      From that NBR link :

      “He rings round his friends, arranges a dinner, charges usurious amounts, invites Mr Key and then passes on some of the profits to the party.”

      Well that doesn’t sound dodgy at all.
21. One Anonymous Bloke 21

    8 March 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Interesting timing from Paddy. Could it possibly be related to the universal observation that he is a partisan hack who makes up stories?

    Good photo of Key. He looks annoyed 🙂
22. Matthew Hooton 22

    8 March 2014 at 4:50 pm

    David Farrar points out that donations to a party of $5k don’t need to be declared anyway. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/excitable-out-there-donation-disclosure-thresholds-ck-152982

    So if the people who paid $5k to go to dinner at Antoine’s had given the money to National it wouldn’t have had to been declared. It was only declared because it was a private fund-raiser by Tony Astle and he gave a single large donation. There really is no issue here.
    • phillip ure 22.1

      8 March 2014 at 5:09 pm

      there is ‘no issue’ around national party fundraising..

      ..and the transparency thereof..?

      ..it’s not just another version of ‘dirty deeds done real cheap’..?

      ..now you see it..now you don’t..?

      ..right ho..!

      ..we believe you..!

      ..eh..?..

      ..phillip ure..
    • quartz 22.2

      8 March 2014 at 5:15 pm

      You were at one of those dinners Mathew Hooton. Who paid for your ticket? SkyCity? Rio Tinto? Warner Brothers?
      • Matthew Hooton 22.2.1

        8 March 2014 at 5:32 pm

        No, I haven’t been to one of the dinners.
        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 22.2.1.1

          8 March 2014 at 5:34 pm

          ….I am guessing that means you have been to many of them 😆
          • geoff 22.2.1.1.1

            8 March 2014 at 5:39 pm

            +1!
          • felix 22.2.1.1.2

            8 March 2014 at 5:57 pm

            lolz yes, as Matthew said he missed one of them
          • Matthew Hooton 22.2.1.1.3

            8 March 2014 at 6:02 pm

            never been to any of them
            • quartz 22.2.1.1.3.1

              8 March 2014 at 6:38 pm

              You’re lying, Matthew Hooton. My tory brother-in-law has seen you at a National Party fund raising dinner.
              • rhinocrates …

                8 March 2014 at 6:49 pm

                Is the Pope Catholic? Do bears shit in the woods? Does Hooton lie?

                You can assume something has been confirmed once that lying, racist shit Hooton has denied any personal involvement.

                Hey Hoots, shouldn’t you be off writing another manifesto for Anders Brevik since he was soooo impressed by the previous work of you and your friends? I hear that he’s getting bored in prison.
              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                8 March 2014 at 7:01 pm

                ha! quartz very nice thanx
              • Matthew Hooton …

                8 March 2014 at 7:29 pm

                Must be Epsom or Tauranga events, or maybe the post-Budget breakfast. Never been to one of the Antoine’s fundraisers.
                • quartz …

                  8 March 2014 at 7:44 pm

                  So you have been to fundraiser dinners. Why did you claim you hadn’t?
                  • Matthew Hooton …

                    8 March 2014 at 7:46 pm

                    FFS, we were talking about the $5k Antoine’s ones.
                    • quartz …

                      8 March 2014 at 7:52 pm

                      So you’ve just been to the $1k ones then? Who paid for the tickets?
                    • Tracey …

                      8 March 2014 at 7:55 pm

                      Actually everyone else is discussing key saying not disclosing the names of donors suggests you have something to hide and yet key wont disclose the names of anonymous donors.
                    • geoff …

                      8 March 2014 at 8:04 pm

                      Oh Matthew, I actually feel sorry for you sometimes.
                    • felix …

                      8 March 2014 at 8:35 pm

                      From what Matthew is saying, perhaps there are far more of these “dinners” than first suspected.

                      Time to open all the books. And all the trusts. Let’s see all the donations and all the donors. Let’s find out who owns our government.

                      Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Right?
                    • rhinocrates …

                      8 March 2014 at 10:14 pm

                      That’s desperate Hoots. You’ve got to do better, you’ve got to try harder than that. You’ve already been exposed – once again – as lying.

                      Is your heart not in it any more?

                      Your clients are going to notice eventually. That’s going to affect your brand and your market value.
                    • newsense …

                      8 March 2014 at 11:02 pm

                      oh- so we were talking about declaring secret donors, not about declaring secret donors.
                  • Tracey …

                    8 March 2014 at 7:52 pm

                    His job is to look for different meanings from words no matter what the intent of the speaker and argue a different meaning. He does this in just about every comment in this thread.

                    He will now explain what dinner he was saying he wasnt at…
                  • bad12 …

                    8 March 2014 at 8:46 pm

                    Lolz, wee Matty isn’t high enough up the money tree to even get an invite to the five grander’s,

                    People like the elite of SkyCity’s management team tho are a must for an invite to get pissed with Slippery the PM and the five grand is well worth the effort of having an up-close encounter with a PM behaving like a clown,

                    None of us would ever for a moment consider there is any connection between the people attending these events, the five grand donations, and, later law changes that just coincidently are of great financial benefit to them…
                    • quartz …

                      8 March 2014 at 10:13 pm

                      Sometimes a company might want to give 50,000 but not be known. That’s when they’d need 10 lackeys to split that donation across a couple of dinner tables. Then each donation is too small to warrant disclosure. The nats have been laundering big donations like this for years.

                      I’d expect Matthew Hooton would be a perfect lackey for a job like that.
                    • rhinocrates …

                      8 March 2014 at 10:19 pm

                      Pathetic isn’t it? Hoots adopts such airs and graces, but it’s just a sycophantic cocksucker for hire with added gratuitous racism and that’s obvious to everyone.

                      I’d call it a whore, but that would be a gross insult to so many honest sex workers.
                • Skinny …

                  8 March 2014 at 11:05 pm

                  Speaking of Epsom my sister told me ACT come knocking on their door in Gardner Rd, probably hustling people to come to their conference. Anyway they gave them the bums rush. They have become all moralistic now choosing to vote the loonie Greens (as you call them).

                  They aren’t interested in the scam of ACT any more, my my how times change. They use to say “John Key is a sound guy, just like us, now they think Key is a dirty slippery prick.” It’s over ACT and National are toast.
            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 22.2.1.1.3.2

              8 March 2014 at 6:39 pm

              who has never been to any of what?
        • finbar. 22.2.1.2

          8 March 2014 at 5:46 pm

          Been spending your time Matthew,reading about the socialist care.
    • Tracey 22.3

      8 March 2014 at 6:05 pm

      But john key says if anyone is getting money the public have a right to know in case there is a conflict of interest. Was he lying matthew?
      • Matthew Hooton 22.3.1

        8 March 2014 at 6:15 pm

        No, the rule is that if an individual MP gets $500+, the public has a right to know who gave it. And if a party gets $15k+, the public has a right to know who gave it.

        Cunliffe used the TR Trust to get around the first rule, even as Shane honestly disclosed who gave him more than that.

        There is no suggestion of the second rule having been breached by anyone.
        • Craig Glen Eden 22.3.1.1

          8 March 2014 at 7:13 pm

          Key is such a hypocrite and so is Hooten, what both fail to acknowlegde was Cunliffes trust was totally legal he did nothing wrong.
          But its ok when Mathews master does it aye Mathew? So come on Mathew tell us all how much the Nats are paying you!
        • You_Fool 22.3.1.2

          8 March 2014 at 7:32 pm

          Pity that wasn’t what Key was saying during the week

          “David Cunliffe has a responsibility to make sure he tells the public who the other two are or he’s going to labelled as having a secret agenda which none of us can verify one way or the other.”

          And

          “Clearly there’s something going on there about people who gave money, but know if their identity is in the public domain that that would be very untidy for the Labour Party,”

          So now we can label Key and National as having a secret agenda as well…
        • Tracey 22.3.1.3

          8 March 2014 at 7:37 pm

          No john key didnt say the public have a right to know who donates so as to ascertain if there is a conflict of interest? Two questions there matthew.

          Address what key said not what you torturously spin he meant, and then apply it to anonymous donors to his dinners
        • Tracey 22.3.1.4

          8 March 2014 at 7:58 pm

          I wonder why key didnt make that clear? Perhaps so the public would think the accusation was more blanket but then… hoist on his own petard

          Anyway matthew, I understand the right says explaining is losing.
        • Skinny 22.3.1.5

          8 March 2014 at 11:46 pm

          Yip and Shane has recently started paying back the Tally family for the donations he has previously recieved, by dealing to Countdown. He Is in for a nice donation from them this election to be sure. That’s how it works ‘who pays the piper calls the tune.’

          Make it taxpayer funded only. It is high time no political donations whatsoever. It will be far cheaper than allowing the scams to continue. Any breeches Jail. It would be fair to say most people are sick and tired of the dirty deals going on.
    • floyd 22.4

      8 March 2014 at 10:30 pm

      Really Matthew!!
    • Benghazi 22.5

      9 March 2014 at 11:03 am

      But that isn’t really the end of the disclosure rules is it Matthew.

      If a corporate (or individual) paid for a number of diners to attend then the $15K threshold could be easily breached. Aggregation in such circumstances is prevented by the rules. This is true whether its a private individual like Astle doing the aggregation or not. At the Antoine’s dinner John Key actually sat and ate with these diners so there is no ability for them to be anonymous. This is exactly the ‘ability to influence’ situation that the rules were designed to make transparent.
23. ScottGN 23

    8 March 2014 at 5:41 pm

    You can always tell when something has hit a raw nerve on Planet Key if Matthew Hooten’s out running interference on the blogs.
24. ianmac 24

    8 March 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Well. Paddy surprised me by actually headlining the Key Hypocrisy on TV3 News tonight. He showed the clip and commented on it and Mr Key compressed his lips and stubbornly refused to be drawn. Exactly the same rules applied to Mr Cunliffe so either Key apologises to David or continues to be stubbornly looking very shifty. Live by the sword….
    • logie97 24.1

      8 March 2014 at 7:53 pm

      Just perhaps, but only perhaps, Paul Henry (Holmes-mimic) has seen his network’s news.
      And he can now look down the lens of the camera and say of John Key, “I just don’t trust you!”
25. mac1 25

    8 March 2014 at 6:19 pm

    And Gower on TV3 News at 6 pm tonight calls Key tricky, too. Hipkins very good at rebuttal and Gower also suggesting that Key is hypocritical.

    I wonder whether the reason Key is refusing to name donors is that the donors were circumventing the $15000 disclosure limit by having a $5000 meal paid for by their company. Disclosure of their names would surely indicate whether they came from companies which would otherwise have had to declare an outright donation, or smaller totals adding up to the $15000 requiring declaration.

    In other words, tricky, devious and hypocritical behaviour from both PM and donors.
    • Tracey 25.1

      8 March 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Perhaps a number of complaints to tv3 this week about lack of fairness or bias added some backbone? We will never know.
26. captain hook 26

    8 March 2014 at 6:36 pm

    papa mike…pm..prime minister…more like mh or mathew hooton with one of his multiple identities.
    everywhich way but loose.
    does hooton get paid for every post here?
27. Rogue Trooper 27

    8 March 2014 at 6:40 pm

    2 + 2 = 5 , don’t you know… 😀
    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 27.1

      8 March 2014 at 8:02 pm

      +1 Rogue Trooper …( = ….8?)
28. bad12 28

    8 March 2014 at 8:01 pm

    Lolz, Slippery the Prime Minister gets caught out being a Hypocrite and along comes wee Matty Hooton attempting to twist the Post into an ”its all about me” extravaganda,

    Why wont our PM name the diners from the fund raising dinners, probably doesn’t look so good sharing dinner with the SkyCity elite all coughing up 5 grand a time, not that there would be any connection with such dinners and subsequent law changes,

    All the better, it was Alfred E. Nuemann making Slippery swallow a large dead rat on national television and again during the news hour, normally Slippery and National can rely on an easy ride from Gower, being taken to task by Him over such hypocrisy must have made the pain for Slippery all the more deep and it showed…
    • floyd 28.1

      8 March 2014 at 10:54 pm

      Wouldn’t it be fun to have a guessing game. Guess who was invited to dinner. For a nominal fee of course. No one will ever know.
      • Anne 28.1.1

        8 March 2014 at 11:05 pm

        Guess who was invited to dinner.

        Let’s start with the Winebox crowd. I mean they owed the Bolger/Shipley Nat. govt. who let them off the hook. That’s Micheal Fay, David Richwhite, Robin Congreve (maybe?).

        Then add the original ACT financiers, Alan Gibbs, Craig Heatley, Ted Farmer, Douglas Myer and their acolytes. Throw in Peter Goodfellow and a few filthy rich gentemen farmers. That takes care of more than half of them.
29. rhinocrates 29

    8 March 2014 at 8:09 pm

    The racist prick Hoots is spinning so much that I wouldn’t be surprised if the Earth’s rotation is affected. Again, I have to ask, who does it think it’s fooling?

    If anything, the fact that it shows up is an indicator that the Nacts are worried.
30. logie97 30

    8 March 2014 at 8:10 pm

    Don’t you just love the Key response to almost every question raised about monies, appears to be
    “It’s within the rules…” and then his spinmeisters who try so desperately to justify his responses

    You can see the likes of these people (traders, accountants and the like) constantly looking for ways through legislation to see if they can EVADE.

    John Key, what about displaying some conscience just for once in your life?

    This would also be a good time for Hooten address Blip’s list of deceits.

    (As an aside, the lawyer who defended Corby in Indonesia, recently commented on radio about the chances of the recent arrest of a Kiwi and representation from the NZ government. She didn’t fancy her chances of representation from the PM. She described Key succinctly – just wish I had a link)
    • idlegus 30.1

      9 March 2014 at 7:40 am

      yeah i heard that, & mercep was desperately trying to change the subject ‘thats politics, we are not talking politics here!’
31. vto 31

    8 March 2014 at 10:37 pm

    If someone donates money to a political party, does that give them influence with that political party?
    • RedLogix 31.1

      8 March 2014 at 10:58 pm

      It’s an interesting question vto.

      Inevitably there is a tension between the need for political parties to be funded – and the fact that funding wants to come with strings.
      • vto 31.1.1

        9 March 2014 at 11:15 am

        With the issue this last week around perceptions of secrets and conflicts of interest I would have thought this is the exact question.

        The perception would quite clearly be that donors do have influence in the political parties they donate to. The reality may be exactly that too.

        And there is evidence of this expectation with dotcom and John Banks. When Dotcom was thrown in jail he was clearly pissed off that the help he expected due to his donations to Banks was not forthcoming. Straight forward evidence of that expectation.

        Such a system is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

        It is a corruption, nothing less.

        Either all donors and donations to political parties must be publicly known, or such donations must be banned.
32. RedBaronCV 32

    8 March 2014 at 11:21 pm

    Since Matty is over here on this one, has he been hired to be here. If so then by whom? Does it need a disclosure, as in “this has been authorised by……” or is it an undisclosed donation.
    • rhinocrates 32.1

      9 March 2014 at 2:59 pm

      Oh FFS, EVERYTHING goes into automatic moderation. Am I banned?

      [lprent: Not that I’m aware of. You are aware that there are traps for over-emphasis right? Too much bold, SHOUTING, number of links, etc etc. In fact anything that you’d expect a spambot to do. And of course there are traps for spambot known IP ranges. Occasionally we get false positives.

      But also double check your email/handle spelling. If the system thinks mindlessly detects that one is different then you get caught in the first time user trap. That requires that a moderator approves a message with that combo. ]
      • rhinocrates 32.1.1

        9 March 2014 at 3:05 pm

        Right, THAT worked, here’s what I TRIED to say, paraphrased.

        Hooton may not have been hired to corrupt the dialogue, but it certainly sees an opportunity to advertise itself to its prospective clients. It’s not even trolling, it’s just trying to show that it’s a “widely respected commentator” ever more desperately.

        Its company, Effluvium, must be having some cash-flow problems. And some credibility problems.
        • rhinocrates 32.1.1.1

          9 March 2014 at 3:07 pm

          Jesus Christ, can I make one single comment that isn’t “awaiting moderation”?

          [RL: No idea about the moderation. Released one of them.]
          • rhinocrates 32.1.1.1.1

            9 March 2014 at 3:11 pm

            OK, trying AGAIN:

            Right, THAT worked, here’s what I TRIED to say, paraphrased.

            Hooton may not have been hired to corrupt the dialogue, but it certainly sees an opportunity to advertise itself to its prospective clients. It’s not even trolling, it’s just trying to show that it’s a “widely respected commentator” ever more desperately.

            Its company, Effluvium, must be having some cash-flow problems. And some credibility problems.
          • rhinocrates 32.1.1.1.2

            9 March 2014 at 3:17 pm

            Hi RL, there appears to be a technical problem or I’m using keywords that trigger something. Thing-that-lives-under-a-bridge-and-doesn’t-like-billy-goats might be one of them?
            • RedLogix 32.1.1.1.2.1

              9 March 2014 at 3:20 pm

              Yes … from memory Lynn added ‘troll’ to the auto-mod list ages ago .. although he’s always doing admin work on the site and I’ve no idea what the current status of these things is.
            • fender 32.1.1.1.2.2

              9 March 2014 at 5:38 pm

              Keep cool Rhino, I enjoy your comments and would hate to see you have a melt down 😀
33. Murray Olsen 33

    9 March 2014 at 3:45 am

    The only interesting thing about Horton is that he’s here. Because a Horton is faithful, 100%.

    What he says is as interesting as it is accurate. I suggest never responding to him. Ignore him and laugh as he loses his income.
34. captain hook 34

    9 March 2014 at 9:34 am

    hooton hatches an egg?
35. Bearded Git 35

    9 March 2014 at 11:46 am

    Labour should announce a policy tomorrow saying that they will release the names of ALL donors above $100 from tomorrow’s date.

    That will close the issue down and make National look slippery.
    • Lanthanide 35.1

      9 March 2014 at 2:32 pm

      No, that will revive the issue by making it look like they did something wrong when they didn’t. Cunliffe has already released the names and paid back the money to the others, so the (non-)issue is sorted.
36. Delia 36

    9 March 2014 at 1:07 pm

    Prime Minister Key is very tricky indeed.
37. freedom 37

    9 March 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Political funds in NZ are an issue that should not be ignored any longer. We know there are options, even I came up with one, so there must be others out there. What is lacking is the will to tackle the obvious flaw in the systems we have in place. Political funding is not transparent.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/heres-an-idea-electoral-funding/
    • freedom 37.1

      9 March 2014 at 5:02 pm

      National and Labour will both be concerned about recent funding disclosures but look at it this way.
      The soup is spilt. We need a new tablecloth because shifting the gravy boat is only a temporary fix.

      Today’s topic is about dinners and the like. With the Electoral Donation Register of New Zealand, the event holder simply lodges the event with the EDRNZ (and most likely the Party administration), receives a reference code for their records and collects the donations at the event. One simple electronic card transaction at the event and the individual/companies donation is logged and transparent with all parties having the same information.

      If held in a hospitality venue or similar business there is an accountancy aspect that requires separation of the event’s donations from other turnover of the event. With contemporary till systems and their transaction tracking, the establishment of a ‘donation button’ on their till is not exactly what you would call an inconvenience.

      One simple way for this [potentially] grey area of accountancy to be obliterated, is when lodging the event, the group responsible can be given a mobile Eftpos machine or Square device linked directly to the EDRNZ. This is also a useful toolbox for the audit requirements of such an organization.

      Yet again though, the obvious benefits to such a scheme are the very reasons those with the most to expose will never let it be built.
38. rhinocrates 38

    9 March 2014 at 3:13 pm

    Fucking Hell, this is ridiculous. Still can’t get through.

    Yet again

    Hooton may not have been hired to corrupt the dialogue, but it certainly sees an opportunity to advertise itself to its prospective clients. It’s not even tr-lling, it’s just trying to show that it’s a “widely respected commentator” ever more desperately.

    Its company, Effluvium, must be having some cash-flow problems. And some credibility problems.
39. rhinocrates 39

    9 March 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Right, 6th attempt after a reboot:

    There appears to be a technical problem. I simply cannot get most of my my comments even to appear with “your comment is awaiting moderation” now.

    Cthulhu knows if this will get through.
40. rhinocrates 40

    9 March 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Aaaannnddd another one disappeared.

    Here’s the content, surely it wasn’t triggering? (I’m not angry, I’m just trying to highlight what appears to be a technical problem):

    Right, 6th attempt after a reboot:

    There appears to be a technical problem. I simply cannot get most of my my comments even to appear with “your comment is awaiting moderation” now.

    Cthulhu knows if this will get through.
41. rhinocrates 41

    9 March 2014 at 3:36 pm

    8th go…

    Aaaannnddd another one disappeared.

    Here’s the content, surely it wasn’t triggering? (I’m not angry, I’m just trying to highlight what appears to be a technical problem):

    Right, 6th attempt after a reboot:

    There appears to be a technical problem. I simply cannot get most of my my comments even to appear with “your comment is awaiting moderation” now.

    Cthulhu knows if this will get through.
42. rhinocrates 42

    9 March 2014 at 3:37 pm

    9th…

    Aaaannnddd another one disappeared.

    Here’s the content, surely it wasn’t triggering? (I’m not angry, I’m just trying to highlight what appears to be a technical problem):

    Right, 6th attempt after a reboot:

    There appears to be a technical problem. I simply cannot get most of my my comments even to appear with “your comment is awaiting moderation” now.

    Cthulhu knows if this will get through.
43. rhinocrates 43

    9 March 2014 at 3:39 pm

    11th…

    Aaaannnddd another one disappeared.

    Here’s the content, surely it wasn’t triggering? (I’m not angry, I’m just trying to highlight what appears to be a technical problem):

    Right, 6th attempt after a reboot:

    There appears to be a technical problem. I simply cannot get most of my my comments even to appear with “your comment is awaiting moderation” now.

    Cthulhu knows if this will get through.
44. rhinocrates 44

    9 March 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Yes, trying repeatedly, avoiding “thing that lives under a bridge” Eleven attempts now, with totally innocuous language. I’m pretty sure that it’s a technical problem. I’m not sure if this will get through…
45. rhinocrates 45

    9 March 2014 at 3:59 pm

    TEST.

    Trying again.
46. rhinocrates 46

    9 March 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Well, a few posts have appeared suddenly. Most haven’t. Odd. I know how perverse computer networks can be – “bureaucracy in a box” is how I describe them.
47. rhinocrates 47

    9 March 2014 at 4:05 pm

    Once again… tried, and it disappeared:

    Well, a few posts have appeared suddenly. Most haven’t. Odd. I know how perverse computer networks can be – “bureaucracy in a box” is how I describe them.
48. Mary 48

    9 March 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Keys isn’t tricky. He’s just a successful liar. That’s it.

Links to post

1. Dinner money - The Standard: posted on 9 March 2014 at 3:40 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS