Written By: - Date published: 6:30 pm, September 9th, 2008 - 109 comments
Categories: national -
Tags: infighting
Multiple spies, whom National has been unable to catch, and a series of ‘gaffes’ and accidents involving sensitive papers?
Or a bitter faction led by the man who was deposed by Key’s vote?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Yo – vto! – Good stuff bro but make sure you put the golden ones back – they’re too rare to be scoffing in a fritter…
Just trying to get a feel for the sort of thing you would find unacceptable, because this doesn’t seem to do it for you.
Well speaking only for myself vto, here’s a few things I find unacceptable.
(1) Trying to rort an election by colluding with a third party campaign which breaches electoral finance law, then lying about it to the public. The public seem to agree, because Brash lost his job for this.
(2) Lying to the public about what you intend to do if you win the election, concealing your true hard right agenda behind a bland Labour-lite facade. The public seem to agree, considering the hit National has taken since the secret agenda tapes.
(3) Concealing the identity of donors to the party (who should by the intent of the law be publicly listed) behind shell trusts, and possibly selling out to these secret donors aspects of your policy (eg National’s policy relating to insurance, as per The Hollow Men). The public don’t seem to have woken up to that one in a big way yet, but one good thing to come out of this NZF mess is that now they just might…
But anyway, I haven’t seen such an orgiastic frenzy of right wing indignation here since the last time we had a good “who are The Standard” witch hunt. All very edifying I’m sure. I’m going to go take a walk in the fresh air, deliver some pamphlets. Tally ho.
far out you lot are coming across desperate. You wouldnt think you lot had such a big lead in the polls, unless you suspect something we dont?
but yeah I think the whole two factions thing is fairly plausable. Billy Boy English (east wellington super hero’s catholic idol, hey buddy, hows tracking down the rest of those kiddy fidlers going?) but who else, up to 6 people isnt it?
Then theres the opposing faction, “No Brash, No Cash” et al
interesting times!
ya ya mr sod. saw a very rare weird one once that was really black with frilly red rooster-type mane things around its head. the weirdo rare ones always stick out so will gently return to the h2o. later.
+staying on topic…is it an implant or is it a rug…which is more likely?
So the middle classes who dominate our parliament are not to be trusted in the trenches. Really?
And they can be (or even tend to be) slimy, smarmy and disloyal?
OMG how revelatory that you shouldn’t trust them as far as you can throw them. C’mon! Nobody from outside the middle class has ever thought otherwise.
This stramash is being propagated by ‘holier than thou’ middle class hypocrisy in the media and some delusional shite that our political masters are somehow honourable.
It’s all bollox.
The only question should be which party has the most preferred policies and which party is more liable to stick closer to their professed policies.
Helen Clark knew because she is the self-proclaimed Chief Political Strategist of the Labour Party. How would the Chief Political Strategist not know of a Chief Political Strategy?
Robinsod:
I wouldn’t know classy? Yet you call me a retard.
By the way, last election I split my vote between Labour and New Zealand first.
Robinsod:
Two out of three anit bad.
To stick with off topic (sorry Anita!) what is it that Labour has done that is so bad? No one is even attempting to say what, just spewing rhetoric. All this “Stench of Corruption”, “Hypocricy” and so on.
I’ll tell you what has got me riled about it: Clark seemed to have a good idea (I’ll only say that it is not certain) that Glenn had donated to NZF, and possibly (but even more unclear) that Peters had asked. Actually, the latter I’m not sure about – maybe she knew about the donation, but not until her conversation with Glenn did she have any definite word – a conversation Glenn generously mentioned as “Private and Confidential”; as I have stated before, a good reason for Clark to have kept her peace.
So – Clark had evidence Peters was lying, none of it concrete, yet she did not call him on it. This was to avoid the present storm and keep the coalition together, and it seems to me she could have possibly acted to ensure Winston did not lie earlier. So that’s bad management, but Peters is not a Labour MP. I suppose she could have acted on her suspicions and sacked him, but I don’t know if that was a genuine option – this is because I can’t tell if she’d have had enough concrete evidence to have acted without risking getting it awfully wrong.
I guess that’s an open invitation for people to paint a different picture, but try and be specific, if you will indulge me.
Labour’s treatment of Glenn has also been a shocker. Not the ‘confused’ comment – I listened to the whole exchange and Cullen was merely saying that Glenn himself had presented conflicting accounts of what happened (stating there were different destinations for the dnation). But his questioning today of Glenn as to whether he was on the phone to Peters was a bridge too far – trying to discredit him in an adversarial fashion pissed me right off. Perhaps there’s something about the Privileges Committee process that makes that behaviour the norm but I don’t think so. Cullen sure got his back, though, but following on from a few other efforts to run distraction around the situation, I’m pretty disgusted.
That, though, is an issue for Labour. If they want to antagonise and alienate a donor, they will suffer the consequences – but again, it’s not a hanging offence. Frankly, they should have stayed away because the whole thing is an NZF problem and they should have stayed right out of it.
Thought I’d write this to spare Tane the inane inquisition – you guys from the right are blowing it up. It was one short story on the news tonight, equal in length to the leaks. Just because it riles you up, don’t expect the same from others, and don’t go about demanding comments from people here, or criticising a lack thereof. Makes you look like, well I won’t say what I think, but it’s pretty stupid behaviour.
If you don’t believe me, a look at stuff right now and it’s the second of four headlines. It’s a half-frontpage story on the Herald next to the All Blacks which isn’t big (especially from them), no mention on 3 until you get to the news page, and TVNZ leads with the leak story. Makes all you lot look like you need to pause for breath! No doubt it will lead the broadsheet, but have some perspective.
BTW none of them mention Labour at all, and even in the stories there is very limited content – three brief mentions all up. Honestly, outside of a few of you, it’s not likely to be that bad for Labour. What I put above is my understanding of it and I have followed what was going on with reasonable interest. I’m not impartial, but I’m not a nutty lynch-mob participant either. I may be wrong about the final impact, but I’m not saying that because of where my support lies – throughout it has been a media vs Winston issue and it will most likely remain as such.
So when is The Standard, the fine bastion of non partisan political discussion and comment going to be remarking on Owen Glenn’s latest admissions? The left love to chastise the National Party and the right at the slight whiff of a conspiracy, but when systematic corruption by the left is uncovered, The Standard stays silent. Charming.
Oh come off it Matthew. This whole debacle smacks of incompetence and hypocrisy considering how critical the left and Labour have typically been on this sort of behaviour on the right. Remember the Exclusive Brethren debacle? And you are trying to suggest that the Labour Party who according to Owen Glenn knew about the donations and up until recently were soliciting even more donations from Glenn are innocent? Isn’t it ironic that a bill, the EFA, brought in to counter so called undertable political funding hits those who fought the hardest for it, and not the National Party which it was ultimately intended to hit? You know as well as I do, if this was involving any party from the Right then this would be front page news with Helen Clark herself calling for John Key and Rodney Hide to resign and hand themselves in for a public flogging.
“[Tane: Dean, it's not a National Government defending Peters. It's a Labour Government saying it'll let the process run its course before making a decision. I think that's fair enough, and I'm not going to defend Winston Peters, nor do I think Clark should. Don't even start me on Bryce Edwards.]”
Tane, don’t pretend if it was National in Labour’s place that you’d be insisting that due process was the correct course of action.
You know you wouldn’t. Come on, man. It’s ok to admit you’re biased. It’s not like anyone thinks youre going to agree with anything Fox news churns out, and it’s not likely you’re going to agree with pretty much anything Rodney Hide says.
You’re firmly in the left camp, and that’s cool – you admit and and do a really good job of debating against the right. It’s just ludicrous to pretend that you’d have the same opinion if it was National.
“People hate Bryce because he is a dick. And a boring dick at that. Trust me – you don’t want to be cornered at a party by this guy ”
Yes, it must be bloody horrible speaking with someone from the left who doesn’t think the EFA was a brilliant idea.
Jared you silly cock, your reply evidences exactly what Matt was talking about. Especially this:
Isn’t it ironic that a bill, the EFA, brought in to counter so called undertable political funding hits those who fought the hardest for it
Not as ironic as how something so complex as a computer has made it so simple for idiots to publicise garbage. Do you mean Labour? Precisely how are they in violation of the EFA here? I think perhaps you should go away until you have the vaguest clue of what you are talking about.
Do you mean this?:
Owen Glenn, acknowledged supporter and long time donor to the Labour party appears to have been asked for, and made, donations to the Labour party. SCANDAL!
Matt – thanks. You said what I’ve been meaning to write but couldn’t motivate myself to.
I think Labour has been fairly rude in their treatment of a major donor, and that’ll be bad for a) their wallets and b) their profiles, but that’s about it. I can’t say I’m impressed with Clarks conduct, but what else was she supposed to do? On the one hand she has the word of a major donor – on the other hand she has the very publicly and prominently stated word of the foreign minister who, despite being a slippery prick and probably going to get what’s coming to him (By the way Randal, do you realise that every time you say “go winnie” you sound like you’re a three year old cheering an A.A.Milne book?), has persuaded 130,000 NZ citizens (shudder) that he deserves to have “right honourable” in front of his name. In a clash of credibilities like that, with no definitive evidence either way, I think think there was little more she could do than what she did – namely wait for due process to clarify the conflict.
So when I actually think about it, all I can really find to say is that Labour should have been a fair bit more considerate of Glenn considering his past contributions, and Winston should (and probably will) go down in flames. Here’s hoping. Bye Winnie!
This bitching about “hypocrisy” is just pathetic. Oh my god the government is more critical of the oppositions conduct than of it’s own, quick, call batman! The government doesn’t need to be critical of it’s own conduct – that’s what the opposition party is for. To those clambering up on the hypocrisy pedestal – isn’t it equally hypocritical of National to be criticising Labour at this point? Answer: yes. So what?
Ok, I’m bored again. Basically when you cut away the crap floating around this whole issue comes back to Winston being crooked and incredibly brazen, which is yesterdays (well, yester1996′s) news to anyone with half a brain (I’m looking at those 130,000 of you as I say this). He should go down, Labour should apologize to Glenn and hope he keeps donating in the future (though I’m not sure if he still can as an overseas resident – or is he still NZ?), and people should go back to asking questions about issues that actually mean a damn outside the incredibly narrow circle of what qualifies as “the beltway” in NZ.
—
VTO – I find Winstons behaviour totally unacceptable. He is a liar and a sneak and I’d really love it if he’s done something sufficiently wrong to wind up in jail. That would make me put on my happy face.
The rest of them more or less retain my usual level of esteem for politicians, which is to say “generally very low”. I’ve disliked Mallard for a long time, and while I admire Cullen it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s been pretty rude – wouldn’t be the first time.
Personally I think if people are trying to decide, based on this event, who they want in parliament; once again their eyes should be drawn to the girl standing on the wharf. Vote Green, and get some more adults in the beehive.
It does involve a party from the right – NZ First. It doesn’t involve any party to the left except insofar as that one is in coalition with the party from the right that is involved.
Yes, it’s possible that the PM could have handled the whole affair better but I think you’ll find that out of date rules and conventions got in the way. You’ve got to remember that this is the first time that this type of conduct has come up in a MMP environment in NZ. Even though we’ve had MMP for 15 years we’re still getting used to the whole concept and we don’t have the experience yet to handle all situations. Hopefully this fiasco will result in better rules being implemented.
I meant NZ First you pillock. As per usual, jumping the gun and assuming I meant Labour. To put it further in perspective what you have is a case of Labour needing NZ First’s support and unwilling to risk their support by being overly critical. I never said nor implied that Labour had breached the EFA either. Morally and Ethically however, her and Labour’s actions have been a disaster. Soliciting even more donations?
Sweet of you to clarify that Jared, thanks. Sweet, and fairly overdue considering that at no point in your rant above did you mention NZ first – but did mention Labour twice. Both times critically. Including in the sentence immediately before the one where you make reference to “those who fought hardest” etc.
So actually you did, by association and omission of clarification, imply that Labour had been “hit the hardest” by the EFA. Quite falsely.
As per usual twisting the facts and crying like a wittle bubby when the foul is called.
Morally and Ethically however, her and Labour’s actions have been a disaster. Soliciting even more donations?
Soliciting donations – Oh noes!!!! I don’t know what you think “soliciting donations” means, because you obviously don’t think it means “asking for money” (which is all it does mean) because if you knew that you’d acknowledge that it is legal, ethical, moral, and completely commonplace amongst political parties. Did you think it all came from cakestalls?
You should probably write to Greenpeace, Amnesty International, CCF, Red Cross, World Vision, WWF etc and tell them they’re all immoral and unethical.
I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who even reads the back page of the newspaper that NZ First was the only party implicated in EFA breaches in this instance, so implying that what I said suggested Labour had fallen foul of the EFA is plain ludicrous, and to be honest, a straw mans argument.
Considering the current circumstances surrounding Owen Glenn’s political donations, Labour and Helen’s goal of forming a campaign based on honesty and trust, to seek donations in that manner, and in the current light is yes, I believe, immoral and unethical. In the same respect that if National was to solicit the Exclusive Brethren for donations after the fall out. Also, isn’t the aim of the EFA and Labour’s to improve transparency of political donations to prevent any unfair advantages?
The EFA, heralded as the ultimate weapon against anonymous big money influence in our elections by Labour and it’s supporters and which has since been criticised by the Electoral Commission as having a “chilling effect” on public participation, contained specific provisions designed NOT to exclude big money donor Owen Glenn who without doubt fits Cullen’s description of a “rich prick”.
Looks like they needn’t have gone to the effort as I doubt he’ll be contributing much now so good luck with tapping into the grass roots support base for your fund raising this election. I’m sure the grafters will see Labour as a party of transparency and integrity and dig deep.
This whole debacle smacks of incompetence and hypocrisy considering how critical the left and Labour have typically been on this sort of behaviour on the right. Remember the Exclusive Brethren debacle? And you are trying to suggest that the Labour Party who according to Owen Glenn knew about the donations and up until recently were soliciting even more donations from Glenn are innocent? Isn’t it ironic that a bill, the EFA, brought in to counter so called undertable political funding hits those who fought the hardest for it…
Don’t blame me for your lousy phrasing, I’m not the one who wrote it. If you think my selective highlight above misrepresents what you wrote then please, elaborate, and explain how you pointed to NZ First and are not trying to smear labour by association.
OH! Now I see it!
This whole debacle smacks of incompeteNce and hypocriSy considering how critical the lEft and Labour have typically bEen on this sort of behaviour on the right. Remember the Exclusive Brethren debacle? And you are trying to suggest that the Labour Party who according to Owen Glenn knew about the donations and up until recently were soliciting even more donations from Glenn are innocent? Isn’t it ironic that a bill, the EFA, brought in to counter so called undertable political Funding hits those who fought the hardest for it, and not the National Party which it was ultimately intended to hit?
Sorry man, missed it the first time through, my bad. That’s what happens when you spell Z phonetically.
–
It’s not unethical at all you munter, he’s an acknowledged major donor. You clearly fall into the previously mentioned category of people who don’t understand the difference between undisclosed secret donations (by special interest groups with a barrow to push) and openly disclosed donations.
“Also, isn’t the aim of the EFA and Labour’s to improve transparency of political donations to prevent any unfair advantages?” – Yes, which is why they would have had to disclose any donation they have or do get from Glenn, and why the subterfuge you’re protesting is a load of crap. You wanted Labour to announce they were trying to get donations from Glenn? Yeah, that’s newsworthy…
“big money donor Owen Glenn who without doubt fits Cullen’s description of a “rich prick’”
No, actually, he doesn’t. You see, you can tell “rich pricks”. Find a group of rich people, and look for the pricks. They’re the “rich pricks”. Other’s in the group are just rich.
Pricks can be characterised by many things, among them a sentiment that cynical attacks on a nations currency leading to economic collapse and suffering are a perfectly reasonable way to make money because hey – it’s a market.
More examples.
Michael Fay – Rich Prick
Gareth Morgan – Rich
David Richwhite – Rich Prick
Stephen Tindall – Rich
You can also tell rich pricks apart from rich people because pricks tend to appear to have no friends. This is an illusion created by the fact that no one actually likes them.
T-Rex.
Shame Labour have screwed Owen Glenn over.
Nice one labour. Shame about the morals.
‘-rex,
So, the collapse of the economy is all the fault of John Key and his trading mates, and nothing to do with the economic shambles left behinsd by our last true left wing PM, Sir Robert?
Your fantasy world must be a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
T-Rex, Tindall got rich by screwing workers and suppliers to the wall on wages/prices. So how is he not a rick prick?
John Key said the fourth policy is most probably Health. On Breakfast this morning.
I propose to post on topic. Not always. Just now.
It just doesn’t make sense that Bill English is planning to roll John Key when they have the best chance at forming a government since 1993.
And if Trevor has access to all of National’s really dirty secrets, how come he isn’t releasing all of that sectret agenda stuff you guys talk about all the time. Could it be because there isn’t a secret agenda? Nah, that’s probably not it.
I propose to post on topic. Not always. Just now.
I just don’t know what the world is coming to, I really don’t.
And if Trevor has access to all of National’s really dirty secrets
No one says he does. Trevor has access to whatever the Nat leaker drops on his desk.
how come he isn’t releasing all of that sectret agenda stuff you guys talk about all the time. Could it be because there isn’t a secret agenda?
The secret agenda won’t be written down Billy. It will be known to most, and told to the party faithful at their gatherings, to help them swallow the Labour lite facade that National needs to adopt to make themselves (deceitfully) electable.
Phil – our economy has not collapsed. Go and look out the window. See people going to work, and getting paid, and having relatively easy access to credit, and not starving, and having functional state services (police, health, welfare, education) etc? That’s how you can tell.
Compare it to… ohhh… say Thailand in the late 90′s.
Dom:
I’m no fan of the warehouse. The difference is one of degree. Oh, and also http://www.tindall.org.nz/.
Maybe Tindall IS a prick – I don’t know the guy, couldn’t tell you. But he doesn’t seem like one to me.
functional state services (police, health, welfare, education)
Bah… there goes the morning coffee!!
Remind me, the report out early this week saying (as a result of a cruddy health system) how many people would die?
T-rex – thanks for jumping in. I should know better than to write something like that before going to bed. Given our history of writing the same thing at the same time, it’s fortunate you didn’t bash out a marathon post saying the same thing as mine!
Still, I was genuinely interested in hearing what Labour had done wrong, specifically, as opposed to “you were against secret trusts and now you are vaguely associated with one somehow, though I will neglect to specify how” sort of comments.
Labour has properly decleared their donations, so there’s nothing wrong with them trying to get further donations – apart from the fact that they’ve bagged the man they’re asking for money from – but that’s labour’s problem, not anyone else’s. Well apart from Glenn, unfortunately.
..And still no post on the Peters/Clark/Glen fiasco. What a joke
[mike. if you want a post on a certain topic within a certina timeframe, go write your own blog. There is a post on Peters now. SP]
T-Rex – Point taken – he gives money away. I question so-called charity from these rich guys when they’ve made that money by treating their workers badly – I would love to see the Warehouse provide better conditions of employment. Of course, unlike a charity that isn’t tax deductible…
As for the Owen Glenn situation – it’s actually nice to have a site without his face all over it.