Comments on: Winston tears Paul Henry a new one

By: randal

randal — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:57:05 +0000

Winston is the only forthright member in the house. He bows to no one and when he speaks his mind and tells p.h. a few home truths the nana’s get excited…it might be their turn next…watch this space

By: Weather Eye Of The North

Weather Eye Of The North — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:31:51 +0000

Paul Henry is an hubristic little prick, as is Peters.

Where Henry departs is that he is also an elitist little prick. But remember, they both hail from National Party roots.

I enjoyed the Close-Up episode immensely. They both showed themselves up, Peters for the disingenuous rabble-rouser he is (remind you at all of the low-rent watchers we call political journalists?), and Henry The Wonderful for being so unprepared as not to see it coming.

Haven’t we come a long way though from the days when the media spat their collective dummy and proclaimed – “We won’t…..we just won’t…..accept Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs!” ?

You read it all quite wrongly boys and girls as hack Soper demonstrated to his withering embarrassment in Washington.

Such blind arrogance !

By: burt

burt — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:10:02 +0000

Robinsod

Perhaps I are a retard….

Not a good look…

OK, the typo is taken out, now what do you think about Peters appearing to be saying ‘I’m allowed to answer that question NO without breaking the law so piss off’.

By: burt

burt — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:50:57 +0000

Robinsod

OK, I left the door wide open for the play the man game. So here is that line reworded.

Not a good lock from a man who denigrates National for using secret trusts to hide their big money donors.

So how about that Peters eh?

By: Robinsod

Robinsod — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:43:11 +0000

Not a good lock from a man that claims National are using secret trusts to hide their donors.

Burt you retard – it’s not a “claim” it’s a recorded fact. Your relationship with reality seems to becoming more distant…

By: burt

burt — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:40:29 +0000

Pablo

Perhaps he simply failed to recognise the difference between the B/F show and prime time, or, failed to adjust his approach when he recognised the interview getting away on him (if he was clever enough to realise he was losing it).

I don’t think Peters came out of that looking good at all. He’s basically said “I’m allowed to say ‘No’ without breaking the electoral law even if I know it was Glenn, so I’m saying ‘No’ now piss off”.

Not a good lock from a man that claims National are using secret trusts to hide their donors.

By: Snelly Boy

Snelly Boy — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:54:03 +0000

The best outcome of this interview will be the realisation by the public at large that Henry is a Nat party stooge.

The fact he was a failed Nat candidate has been the best kept secret to mum and dad public.

I realise everyone here would have been aware but you’d be surprised to the extent this is unknown out there.

Hopefully, from here on in, Henyry’s trademark racist and pro Nat scum utterings will be taken for what they are.

By: r0b

r0b — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:15:57 +0000

Rumpole, I don’t think I disagree with any of that, except that (1) I think Winston has already made shuch a denial (see video at the top of this page), and (2) you seem to be trying to make it sound like the unpaid and largely symbolic roll of honorary consul is some kind of major bauble that is worth political deception over.

But note also that the only reason we are even having this discussion is that Owen Glenn was upfront and open about his donation. Aren’t you at all interested in who is donating to National, and what they are asking for? If not, why not?

(See the Colin Espiner quote and link upthread).

By: AncientGeek

AncientGeek — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:05:03 +0000

Rumpole: I would dearly like to know who all anonymous donors are, including the nat’s. But using blind trusts to conceal tracebacks makes that almost impossible.

It was a pity that part of the EFA was dropped.

By: Rumpole

Rumpole — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:44:13 +0000

rOb
At this time I agree nothing illegal is known to have occurred, however a large Owen Glen donation to an unamed party gives rise to questions when most other parties deny being recipients or are confirmed as non recipients by Glen and NZ first president speaksof an untraced receipt in their bank account.Any overseas receipt over $10,000 requires banks to report same so such a source would be known. In the case of NZ receipts banks know the sending bank and the account number and probably the name of the sender so when Dail Jones said the banks could not help this indicates that he is not telling the whole truth or perhaps the Bank was instructed not to divulge the information from higher authority. When looked at in the light of Winston being the decision maker and Glen advising his desire to be considered as our consul to Monaco does make 2 2 look like equaling 4 especially as Winstons predessor had confirmed a few years ago that there was no case for NZ needing a consul to Monaco.Add the non payment of stolen taxpayer funds and the antics of trying to pay to a charity and the still retention of the money by NZ First does give an impression of having something to hide. I agree journalists do not ask the most pertinent of questions so my suggestion is asking Winston to deny any donation/loan/gift or other receipt of money in any form that would be greater than 10,000 has been received this current return year other than those declared on the return which could be done now rather than wait until April, a yes or no response please with NO being accepted until evidence to the contrary is available.

By: george

george — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:55:00 +0000

It seemed to me that Winston was simply not suffering fools in his press conference or with Henry. Some of the questions asked of him were stupid, or repetitious, Winston fronted the journos up and told them not to be tiresome. He dd it in his usual smug & self righteous Winston way. Winnie can act like a smug prick at times but he was fairly blunt and clear with the journalists & Henry I think.

As for the Nats, it is rich for them to crap on about other parties donations whilst they launder huge sms through private trusts. The EFA applies to National as much as Labour. The Labour party has to come clean about its funding, it is facing some flack over that now. Fair enough, none of us want elections brought by big business and vested interests like the BRT or EBs. Labour has to comply with the new laws. Likeiwse, National has to be open and honest about where its financing comes from. I realise the Nat paty doesn’t like this, but, too bad. Get over it & comply with the law. The EFA isn’t ‘slanted’ in favour of Labour or anti-National. It is there to clean up some of the politics run by National at the last election. It stops however Labour as much a National doing any dirty little scams this time around. So be it.

By: r0b

r0b — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:52:58 +0000

Yes R0b. Well spotted. The Nats did nothing illegal. But, apparently, they can’t hide behind that. Winston, however, is allowed to

The Nats can’t hide behind anything because of the shameless way they have laid in to Labour. Colin Espiner sets it all out. Is Colin wrong in any way Billy?

By: BoomTownPrat

BoomTownPrat — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:41:52 +0000

Ahh, very good. The deification of Glenn now confers the absolution of the nuclear free legislation (you know he wants it), and a free trade deal, with a dictatorsip that effects the law, that the bill for the bullet that kills the accused is charged to the family.

Which part of hypocrisy dont you get?

Also, Question…..How much money would A. King gain out of the covert millions for health care deal in the bay?

By: Billy

Billy — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:31:43 +0000

Yes R0b. Well spotted. The Nats did nothing illegal. But, apparently, they can’t hide behind that. Winston, however, is allowed to.

By: r0b

r0b — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:20:24 +0000

All you lefties wailing about how the Nats should be disclosing their anonymous donors seem to be saying it’s OK for Winston to keep his under wraps. How’s that work?

It works thus. Why all the media attention on Owen Glenn and his donations? He’s been open with his name, he’s done nothing illegal, Labour’s done nothing illegal, any other party he’s donated to has done nothing illegal. So why exactly has there been a 2 week media circus on this?

In the mean time, National gets far more in anonymous donations, from people who don’t front up with their name like Glenn. Presumably none of them have done anything illegal either. And the media attention has been zero.

So, why a circus on one hand, and a nice round zero on the other? Go Colin – tell it like it is:

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

After a week of climbing into Labour boots and all over the Owen Glenn saga, one thing has become abundantly clear: the Nats have lost any defence of their right to keep their own campaign donations secret.

It is the height of hypocrisy for National to claim, as both its leader John Key and deputy Bill English have done this week, that “Labour’s relationship with its largest donor looks very murky indeed’ when National’s own relationship with its donors is not so much murky as totally hidden.