Cash for cars?

117 comments on “Cash for cars? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. infused 1

   11 May 2011 at 5:29 pm

   Predictable, Rob jumps on it. Labour signed the contract. Jesus.

   “In the House today Labour has falsely assorted corrupt dealings in relation to the contract between the Department of Internal Affairs and BMW NZ Ltd to roll over the VIP Transport contract.

   “BMW is not the same entity as the one named by a Labour MP as having made a donation to the National Party.

   “This is not only a baseless smear on my integrity it is also a smear on the integrity of officials in the Department of Internal Affairs who are responsible for the contract.”

   Team McMillan Managing director Bob McMillan told Stuff the donation was made with a group of VIP customers after Key attended a function at the dealership.

   The company had “no association” with the contract for the ministerial cars which he said would have been negotiated directly with BMW New Zealand.

   “I had no idea that there was any deal with 7 Series, we do not get involved with the supply of cars to the Government.”
   • Zorr 1.1

     11 May 2011 at 5:34 pm

     Let me get this straight… the current government is responsible for absolutely nothing at all then infused? Everything is the last Labour government’s fault?

     So what are they going to run on to sell themselves to the public? “We sat around for 3 years and let Labour’s policies continue to roll through despite having control of the government”. That almost sounds really incredibly bad… say it ain’t so!!!
     • infused 1.1.1

       11 May 2011 at 6:07 pm

       Not this no. Labour locked in the renewal.
       • wtl 1.1.1.1

         11 May 2011 at 6:12 pm

         Please supply a reference for that statement. The information I have seen suggests otherwise:

         …there is no financial penalty if it chooses to opt out of the BMW contract.

         Source.
         • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1

           11 May 2011 at 8:29 pm

           infused making shit up? No, please tell me it ain’t so.
           • terryg 1.1.1.1.1.1

             11 May 2011 at 9:36 pm

             3.5 hours later, and still no rebuttal, let alone with source, from infused. An infusion of half-truths methinks, washed down with a cup or two of confirmations bias 🙂

             [lprent: that is a variant of the pwned argument which is unacceptable. Because of the nature of the medium, people are not online all of the time. Claiming time based ‘victories’ or anything similar is a violation of policy because it starts flamewars. Desist from using that style of argument. Otherwise I will ensure you do. ]
             • terryg …

               12 May 2011 at 3:08 am

               OK, DIKTAT understood. I especially liked the gratuitous yet redundant “otherwise I will ensure you do”.

               Whats the point of linking to the policy page when it contains NO USEFUL EXAMPLES, only generalisations – I’ve read it a number of times via diktats, yet each time have been unable to find any mention of the verboten behaviour – e.g. pwned argument.

               A list of examples would be trivial to add viz. pasting diktats, thus rendering linking useful.
               • Lanthanide …

                 12 May 2011 at 1:15 pm

                 I have to agree. The policy page really isn’t very useful.
                 • lprent …

                   12 May 2011 at 5:29 pm

                   It isn’t really intended to be that useful in terms of examples. The open nature of the net means that new tactics are imported and are tried pretty continuously. The policy page (with the exception of the privacy section) is vague because it is pointless trying to iterate possible problems.

                   What the page effectively says is that you will be moderated if we think it is required for the good of the site, and then gives some ideas about the general classes of things that we’re looking for.
                   • terryg …

                     12 May 2011 at 5:30 pm

                     then why bother linking to it?
                   • terryg …

                     12 May 2011 at 6:09 pm

                     All you would need to do is add an “Examples” link to the bottom of the Rules section:

                     “The bar is high but there is a bar. EXAMPLES”

                     and on the linked page, just throw a list of diktats THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN.

                     how hard is that?

                     otherwise, unless site visitors happen to read that particular diktat in that particular comment thread, they will be entirely unaware of it (shades of pissing ones pants whilst wearing a dark suit)

                     *sigh* computer programmers eh? no wonder software works so badly
       • Frank Macskasy 1.1.1.2

         12 May 2011 at 12:52 am

         Incorrect.

         There was no clause in the contract making an upgrade mandatory. It was an option – nothing more.
         • Lanthanide 1.1.1.2.1

           12 May 2011 at 1:16 pm

           I believe it was definitely required once under the contract, with the last timeframe being 5 years. Jonkey and the boys have decided to pull the trigger at the earliest opportunity, just 3 years.
       • Deadly_NZ 1.1.1.3

         12 May 2011 at 1:23 am

         Well a bit of History then about the famed beemers Labour replaced the old Ford Fairlane and Holden Statesman fleet with BMW 730Ld cars from April 2008. They were estimated to cost about $90,000 each – well below their retail price of $170,000.

         The purchase was criticised by the Green Party and mocked by National members, including now Prime Minister John Key.

         You don’t say Pot meet Kettle kettle meet Pot

         Oh the Link
         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10706548
   • marsman 1.2

     11 May 2011 at 6:02 pm

     @ infused….. Yawn.
   • wtl 1.3

     11 May 2011 at 6:04 pm

     WTF is this nonsense about Labour signing the contract? Yes Labour signed the initial contract which contained a renewal clause with NO PENALTY for choosing to opt out of that clause. In other words, the decision to renew the contract has nothing to do with the fact that Labour initially signed it, but rather it was a decision made entirely by the current government.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 1.3.1

       11 May 2011 at 6:37 pm

       Absolutely correct. The deal for this sort of car would include a ‘right of renewal’ , as is common for leases, you often have the right to buy the car for an pre agreed price , OR walk away and pay nothing.
2. ak 2

   11 May 2011 at 5:37 pm

   More on One News? Doubt it r0b – unless the PM sat in the back while it was speeding or tried to change the lamps of course…
3. mickysavage 3

   11 May 2011 at 5:38 pm

   Labour signed a good deal and got fuel efficient Beemers cheap.
    
   National also got a good deal.  A $50,000 donation is nothing to be sneezed at.

   Maybe there is no link. But there is a real smell about this.
    
   It is good the teflon is wearing off.  Linking a political donation to a company which you buy seat heated luxury cars off at the same time as womens refuge funding is a “nice to have” sticks right in the craw, no matter what justification they spin up.
    
4. todd 4

   11 May 2011 at 5:39 pm

   It was nice that the National Ministers actually shut the fuck up for a while when Chris was making his speech, which also asked some pertinent question that must be answered. We can no longer accept John Keys word when all the evidence points towards corruption.
5. Philoff 5

   11 May 2011 at 5:41 pm

   Labour better be sure of their ground, because they are going to come off looking dirty and desperate if it turns out to be baseless.
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     11 May 2011 at 5:45 pm

     Agreed. This seems risky to me, unless they have some good proof.
     • wtl 5.1.1

       11 May 2011 at 6:09 pm

       I disagree. Whether or not there was actually anything untoward going on, it is not a good look. As pointed out by I/S today:

       Governments have to not only be clean, but be seen to be clean.
       • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1

         12 May 2011 at 12:16 am

         Unfortunately the framing around Labour being a useless opposition will mean this works against them. If they throw this sort of thing up without enough proof, it just makes them look desperate and like they’ll sling any tiny thing against the government, or even fabricate things.

         Now if the predominate framing around Labour is that they were an effective opposition, and that the current government was hopeless, the exact same story run with the exact same evidence would be more evidence of malfeasance by the government. But unfortunately we don’t live in a world where that is the framing that the general public currently have in mind.
6. David 6

   11 May 2011 at 5:49 pm

   On the face of it you Chippie made a king hit but Team McMillan is not BMW NZ and its a Labour government contract.
   Smearing John Key hasnt worked too well for the last 3 years and tends to backfire. Labour should take their lead from Cunliffe who appears above all the nonsense and debates and articulates a better future for NZ with some well reasoned policies.
   • Anthony 6.1

     11 May 2011 at 6:04 pm

     Yeah BMW and Team McMillian have no connection to each other at all.

     Team McMillian probably wouldn’t have anything to do with servicing a BMW fleet either? right?

     “A number of our employees have gone on to become National Managers within BMW Group New Zealand and other franchises. In addition, three former employees have gone on to accept Dealer Principal roles within the BMW Group New Zealand network. That’s a testament to the strength of our commitment to staff development and training.”

     http://www.teambmw.com/view/company-profile/sales-and-service.aspx

     Wait a sec..
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   11 May 2011 at 5:52 pm

   Businesses, not being people no matter what the USian law says, should not be allowed to make donations to political parties. The stink of corruption from such practices is extremely high as it’s not the “business” making the donation but the people in the business. Having the business make the donation just hides who did.

   I would assume tax advantages as well. The business will pay a lower tax rate on that donation than a person.
   • Alwyn 7.1

     11 May 2011 at 6:13 pm

     I presume that the same rules apply to unions as well?
     • logie97 7.1.1

       11 May 2011 at 6:55 pm

       @ Alwyn – so you have come over here for further cleansing … good on yer mate … it’ll do ya good. Might learn a little more on this site than by swimming with a cetacean.
       • Deadly_NZ 7.1.1.1

         12 May 2011 at 1:32 am

         And Alwyn he means a Whale, and the fact that Whaleoil has the temerity to take the good name of Whales everywhere and turn it to shit, their revenge will come
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2

       11 May 2011 at 8:37 pm

       Generally speaking, I’d say yes to that. I’d also include the Business Roundtable and other business organisations in that definition of “union”.
   • Herodotus 7.2

     11 May 2011 at 7:29 pm

     An individual gets a rebate of 30% on donations (to a credible organisation) Remember lately those organisations that lobby govts have been removed from the register, or have had to restructure seperating their lobbying arm from their good/charitable activities.
     For a coy they benefit based on the coy tax rate. So I think currently it is 28%. So a company would not benefit as much. Yet they can write off this cost irrespectively if it is registered or not, but for an individual this is not the case,(only costs that are not deductable are some entertainment costs and the GST associated with this + a few other exemptions) and to be deductable for an individual you require a receipt that complies to the IRD/tax requirements.
     • Herodotus 7.2.1

       11 May 2011 at 8:45 pm

       Wee correction an individual receives 33% rebate not 30%, and todays coy tax rate is 30%.
       • terryg 7.2.1.1

         11 May 2011 at 11:09 pm

         So YES, the business WILL pay a lower tax rate on that donation than a person.
       • Lanthanide 7.2.1.2

         12 May 2011 at 1:21 pm

         The company tax rate is 28%.
8. Carol 8

   11 May 2011 at 5:54 pm

   At least Labour owns their attacks on government’s honesty and integrity, unlike National, which tends to keep such things at arms length, franchising them out to bloggers and small party Rortneys…. as they did when Clark was PM.
9. David 9

   11 May 2011 at 5:54 pm

   @ Draco, does that apply to Unions too ?
10. ghostwhowalksnz 10

    11 May 2011 at 6:35 pm

    While BMW NZ would be the one from benefiting from the new fleet, the deal includes selling the ‘old’ cars.

    This is where Macmillan BMW would benefit. Likely they would get 1/3 of the cars for resale.

    Lets say they have 10 to resell at profit of $10,000 each . Theres a hundred grand for TM-BMW !

    Of course it was all done through Keys COS, which in political terms is his alter ego.

    In business terms this wouldnt be far enough away, it clearly is a ‘transaction by an associated party !
    • David 10.1

      11 May 2011 at 6:50 pm

      Good point. Not sure how the government can tell BMW what to do with their 2nd hand cars and isnt this a contract done by Labour ?
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1

        11 May 2011 at 7:08 pm

        Oh let’s be clear here mate, Labour signed the contract with BMW giving the Government the OPTION of taking up new BMW’s.

        Key CHOSE to EXERCISE that contractual option.

        See?
        • Jim Nald 10.1.1.1

          11 May 2011 at 7:26 pm

          The PM BMW doth protest too much. All this smells rotten in the state of New Zealand.
      • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1.2

        11 May 2011 at 7:28 pm

        When you are a dealer , you know how the system works, that BMW passes the used cars onto its dealer network and you know what % of 7 series models you have sold in NZ.
        QED , your ‘allocation’ will be 10 cars.

        All that was missing was the go ahead in tough times , to replace the fleet , which was done under Keys watch and by his people under his direction and control
        • The Voice of Reason 10.1.2.1

          11 May 2011 at 8:00 pm

          So do you reckon Team Macmillan BMW gained a benefit in relation to the deal? That’s the smoking gun for me.
        • Disengaged 10.1.2.2

          11 May 2011 at 8:12 pm

          That’s not how the “allocation” of used cars works. Generally, ex-fleet or “Head Office” cars are auctioned off into the dealer network. The type of allocation you are referring to relates to new models. For example when the new model of 7 Series is released your allocation is based on your sales figures of the previous model.

          The only benefit that Team McMillan would get from the government using BMWs over another brand would be the labour charges in servicing any cars. Given that Team McMillan is an Auckland based dealer they would only benefit from the Crown Cars based in Auckland and that a modern car would only require servicing once a year, I suspect that that benefit would be pretty minor ($2k tops).

          I would be more concerned if it was Jeff Grey BMW (Wellington dealer) making the donation as they would get the lion share of servicing benefits. But, even then the relationship is pretty tenuous.
          • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1.2.2.1

            12 May 2011 at 6:47 am

            You say a dealer can get an allocation of used cars , which is where the money is made AND then prattle on about servicing. ?
            • Disengaged 10.1.2.2.1.1

              12 May 2011 at 11:44 am

              No. I pointed out that they DON’T get an allocation of used cars. Dealers bid for the cars against other dealers and it has no relation to how many new cars they have sold.
    • Big Bruv 10.2

      12 May 2011 at 7:15 pm

      About bloody time!

      It took the ‘best and brightest’ brains inside Labour (it is bloody sad when ghost is considered the best and brightest) all day to work out what is blindingly obvious.

      And Ghost, you have massively under estimated the potential profit margin.

      BTW…does anybody know if the Unite union has paid the tax department the money it owes them as yet?
      • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1

        12 May 2011 at 7:22 pm

        Bruv mate, delete while there’s still time(stamps).
11. Murray 11

    11 May 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Are we watching the disintegration of the labour party as they become even more irrelevant and desperate as the elections draw near..
    The spectacle of smarmy faced labour Mp,s dutifully stepping forward and attempting to smear John Key with personal attacks is a pitiful low in the election campaign.
    We can only hope they keep it up right through to the elections.
    This with “Sloppy but nothing there” Goff as leader, is sure to ensure a landslide for national.
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      11 May 2011 at 7:06 pm

      Hey Murray!

      There’s far more personal attacks on Key coming. On his lack of integrity, his habit of avoiding giving any real answers to hard questions, the way he has profited from NZ going deeper into debt, the way he gives work to foreigners instead of NZ’ers, his career plans to exit not just from the PM’s job as soon as practical but possibly also from New Zealand altogether.

      Look out for it mate 🙂

      BTW its the NATs who are sweating bullets these days, the smell of fear permeates and Brash can sense it!
      • Deadly_NZ 11.1.1

        12 May 2011 at 1:39 am

        And how many NATS are retiring this year???? more room for the shiny Jamie Ross MKII and maybe even a MKIII Androids to enter parliament. Or if we are really unlucky the John Key MKII.5
      • SHG 11.1.2

        12 May 2011 at 12:14 pm

        There’s far more personal attacks on Key coming.
        Let me guess – all to be made under parliamentary privilege.
12. Alwyn 12

    11 May 2011 at 7:57 pm

    I am, of course, totally sure that he is completely incorruptible but I wonder whether anyone in the Labour Party will be willing to tell the public how much Mike Williams was paid for all the taxpayer jobs he was appointed to by the last Labour Government and also, and I’m sure it is totally unconnected, how much he donated to the party?
    It isn’t corruption if Labour was involved. It was just the best man for the job.
    • mickysavage 12.1

      11 May 2011 at 9:39 pm

      Must … divert … attention …

      Must … divert … attention …
13. The Voice of Reason 13

    11 May 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Going by his efforts on the wireless the other day, he really is the best man for the job. Not to mention all those election wins, which is what really pisses you off.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/05/09/politics_with_matthew_hooton_and_mike_williams
    • Alwyn 13.1

      11 May 2011 at 8:26 pm

      You are right of course. He won two and lost one which is a pretty good record for the Labour Party.
      I actually voted for them in the first win.
      The smear campaigns in 2005 and 2008 pissed me off though.
      • The Voice of Reason 13.1.1

        11 May 2011 at 8:43 pm

        Campaign manager in ’99, too. Agree re: the negative stuff. I reckon that’s best reserved for the right; they enjoy winning dirty.
    • Deadly_NZ 13.2

      12 May 2011 at 1:41 am

      And the fact that he made Hooten look like a real dickhead Nat shill. Has nothing to do with it at all.
14. Salsy 14

    11 May 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Well quite interestingly National have switched to the defensive in what can only be seen as an almost defeatest attitude : Labour-descends-into-the-gutter-again There wouldnt even be a single Nat supporter that believes no corruption is present (most will still vote National cos they have no values) but its those swing voters that will be scratching their heads. This, I believe is a KING HIT, just as the hard talk interterview was.
    • burt 14.1

      11 May 2011 at 8:14 pm

      Salsy

      I’m sure there is still plenty of corruption in parliament today. Most of the previous Labour govt that protected Taito Field and Winston Peters are still there !
    • KJT 14.2

      11 May 2011 at 9:28 pm

      The real corruption is the total sellout of the assets and productive capacity of NZ that NACT intend.

      I wonder how much Key will get when he has finished the sellout he was placed as a sock puppet to achieve.
      • PeteG 14.2.1

        11 May 2011 at 9:37 pm

        That sounds like a real corruption of your paranoia. Key is criticised most for his cautiousness.
        • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.1

          11 May 2011 at 9:41 pm

          Rem who he is criticised by = the Right Wing of his party who want KiwiBank gone, now.

          Who want benefits cut – now.

          Who want strategic power assets sold – now.

          Who want spending on NZ social security slashed, now.

          So the “cautiousness” you are talking about doesn’t count for shit, because it all relates to stuff which is lethal for NZ.
          • Big Bruv 14.2.1.1.1

            12 May 2011 at 7:19 pm

            Who want benefits cut – now…..I do.

            Who want strategic power assets sold – now….I do

            Who want spending on NZ social security slashed, now….I do.
15. burt 15

    11 May 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Alwyn

    It was the same with the BMW’s actually, they were perfectly sensible cars for the govt to have when Labour was upgrading from the Ford’s parliament use to have.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      11 May 2011 at 8:28 pm

      Key and English tell everyone else there is no money in the kitty, that everyone else must tighten their belts

      While they order BMWs with heated seats for themselves
      • burt 15.1.1

        11 May 2011 at 8:32 pm

        Agree CV, I agreed it was excessive when Labour did it and I agree it is excessive now.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1

          11 May 2011 at 9:08 pm

          LOL Key and English say we are borrowing too much and they borrowed from China to buy BMWs

          At least Cullen had 9 straight years of surpluses.
          • burt 15.1.1.1.1

            11 May 2011 at 9:17 pm

            9 straight years of surpluses provided by static tax thresholds creating fiscal drag which gave us 9 straight years of growing consumer debt. Yeah, what a winner… totally rooted the domestic economy and you think it was great….
          • burt 15.1.1.1.2

            11 May 2011 at 9:20 pm

            CV

            Here is what the RWNJ’s were saying of your hero in 2007.

            I pointed out on Tuesday that Dr Cullen was clearly wrong with his assertion that there was nothing in the Australian package for people earning under $30,000 a year.

            He now admits he was wrong. But get this – he still tries to attack the package on the basis that those earning under $11,000 a year get nothing from it. Ummm, that’s because in Australia they are already scheduled to be paying 0% income tax under the tax laws passed last year. So Dr Cullen is complaining that people who pay zero income tax do not get a tax cut. Why do we trust this man with our money?

            Just remember that the caring Dr Cullen will tax someone earning $30,000 almost four times as much as the nasty Peter Costello. Cullen will thump a low income worker on $30,000 with an average 19.1% tax compared to Peter Costello’s proposed 5.0% average tax.

            No wonder he had to lie about the package. It makes his lack of action look so much worse.

            Now tell me CV, which of the two tax burdens (for $30,000/year earners) noted here would you support today ?

            Oh, and don’t forget that at that time people earning over about $150K were paying significantly more tax in Aussie as well.
            • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1.2.1

              11 May 2011 at 9:36 pm

              You;re using kiwiblog for your “references” now? bravo buddy.
            • burt 15.1.1.1.2.2

              11 May 2011 at 9:38 pm

              Do you dispute the calculations and which would you rather we had in NZ CV ?
              • Colonial Viper …

                11 May 2011 at 9:50 pm

                59% income tax on all earnings over $480,000 p.a.
                49% over $240,000 p.a.
                39% over $120,000 p.a.
                Tax free income allowance of $10,000 p.a.
                2% assets tax applicable to each dollar of assets over $2M, applies to trusts as well
                29% death tax applicable to each dollar of assets over $2M
                + CGT, FTT
                GST doubled on luxury goods

                Next please.
                • burt …

                  11 May 2011 at 10:21 pm

                  CV

                  I can almost agree that’s OK because I perceive it as better than today. I take exception to GST doubled on luxury good, not so much because I disagree with the spirit of it (because that same spirit I accept in the progressive tax rates) but because it will be impossible to defend from calls of “cherry picking” and tax needs to be seen to be fair. Who decides what is a luxury good. 5 years ago a 42″ TV was a luxury good and you have previously supported static tax thresholds for 9 years…. I have a similar argument against ‘healthy’ food having no GST.Tax rate changes distort the market and create loopholes.

                  However what stops me agreeing with your table of rates is no published rate for $10,000-$120,000 and you top rate, should go up to about $800,000 – we don’t want all the Judges, Lawyers, Dentists, private medical specialists etc leaving the country do we… That 49% over $240,000 shambles… do you really want a big cluster of earners just under $240K like we had just under $60K with Cullen ?

                  Or did you just describe the Aussie tax rates from 2007 ?
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    12 May 2011 at 2:24 am

                    impossible to defend from calls of “cherry picking” and tax needs to be seen to be fair.

                    meh, if you can afford the petrol for a brand new HSV V8 for $75,000 or a Porsche 911 Turbo for $300,000, you can afford double GST for it.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    12 May 2011 at 2:37 am

                    do you really want a big cluster of earners just under $240K like we had just under $60K with Cullen ?

                    uh, do you mean a big cluster like around 0.25% of earners?

                    You do know the effective tax rate for someone on $250K p.a. is almost the same as someone on $240K p.a., right?
                  • burt …

                    12 May 2011 at 8:10 am

                    So no rate between $10,000-$120,000. OK, if that band is tax free then the rest should be pretty acceptable to most. Well done CV – you have dodged all my questions and painted half a picture of how you think tax should be that looks remarkably like the tax model Cullen said was wrong.

                    Now tell me given you ideal scenario is way more like Aussie tax rates how your hero had it so right ?
    • Draco T Bastard 15.2

      11 May 2011 at 9:29 pm

      It was sensible burt. The Fords actually needed to be upgraded at the time and the BMWs were cheaper and better than the Fords. The difference is, of course, that the cars didn’t need to be upgraded now but National went ahead and did so anyway.
      • burt 15.2.1

        11 May 2011 at 10:42 pm

        Draco

        I can’t dispute that. My main point which on reflection I possibly didn’t make at all was that late 2007 the dark clouds of recession were all around us, some would say upon us and some would say upon us a month later. I thought the signal then was disgraceful, hey NZ – buckle in tight it will be rough ride next year or 10,,, bang out go the Ford’s and in come the new BMW’s…

        Arguably now with recovery generally tipped for the next few years it’s not so bad – but while we are borrowing to pay for them – WTF are they doing ?

        How many NZ folk are replacing cars because they are 4 years old these days ?
16. burt 16

    11 May 2011 at 8:36 pm

    OK, this business about the $50,000 donation – If National hold up a big “NO” sign and deny the donation was ever made will you lovers of lying, cheating, retrospectively validating politicians suddenly support Key or is it only OK when Labour do it … like it was only OK to buy the latest model BMW limmo’s when Labour did it ?
    • terryg 16.1

      11 May 2011 at 9:45 pm

      Burt, I cannot disagree with you and others who mention (again and again, ad nauseum) that labours 3rd term was replete with arrogant behaviour and screw-ups. And they got their arses kicked out of parliament for their trouble. It did, however, take 9 years to piss that many people off.

      Look what NACT have managed in < 2.5 years already.
17. Alwyn 17

    11 May 2011 at 8:46 pm

    I believe our “boy wonder” as trevor regards him is going to go through all the National MPs credit card bills to see if any of them have ever dined at Antoines. He gave a big donation to the National Party I believe. Obviously they were only going there because they are corrupt, not because it is probably the best restaurant in Auckland. (Well arguably the best. Jones and Horomia appear to prefer KFC)
    May we also assume that the donations that Westpac used to give to Labour were because Westpac got the Government banking contract while Labour were the Government?
    • burt 17.1

      11 May 2011 at 9:04 pm

      Oh the good old days before the new standard of accountability was promised in 1999 and implemented in 2009. Back when it was just a slogan Winston Peters had free meals at the Simunovich restaurant while acting as the Chair of an inquiry into Scampi quota abuse which Simunovich were at the centre of…. Of course under Labour that was nothing to see and we just had to move on… When questioned about it by the MSM Winston simply said -It made no difference to the outcome of the inquiry….

      It’s great that now we can expect National to be more ethical and transparent. If there has been any lack of openness and accountability – people should resign. I made the same call over and over with Labour but got shot down so many times.
      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1

        11 May 2011 at 9:07 pm

        Honesty, ethics and transparency lol

        How naive you are
      • mickysavage 17.1.2

        11 May 2011 at 9:49 pm

        Desperate Burt

        How about addressing the current situation and saying if it is right or not.  Next thing you will be doing is saying that Dick Seddon in 1892 did … and he would have been a Labour PM if the Labour Party was in existence at that time.

        Honestly …
        • burt 17.1.2.1

          11 May 2011 at 10:32 pm

          mickysavage

          You are right, but you must have learnt by now that I banked a hell of a lot of “but you previously said” memories when Labour were being defended for same.

          I bitched about it then and I bitch about it now. Join me one day – standing up for your own opinion (even though that changes from time to time and you gotta eat humble pie regular enough) is a hell of a lot more fun on blogs than running party lines.

          You would need to change that name though micky, that just screams “Labour” and how the hell can you ever be taken seriously perpetually supporting a party no matter what they do?
          • mickysavage 17.1.2.1.1

            11 May 2011 at 10:35 pm

            Ha Burt

            I will continue to passionately support the Labour Party until they stuff up and/or become too right wing and then I will probably join the Greens …
            • PeteG 17.1.2.1.1.1

              12 May 2011 at 7:11 am

              I will continue to passionately support the Labour Party until they stuff up

              Funny. You must be one of the few people that don’t see the rolling stuff ups.
          • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1.2

            12 May 2011 at 5:40 pm

            Join me one day

            Said Darth Vader.
18. Irascible 18

    11 May 2011 at 11:19 pm

    The debate over the $50.000 donation to the Key led party is a smoking gun that would deserve headlines in the media, calls for public inquiries and demands for resignations in any other western democracy.
    Regardless of whether Team McMillian would directly or indirectly benefit from the BMW contract they are a BMW agency and boast about it. Their donation to the Key led party within two days of their parent company receiving a Key led government contract for several $200,000 cars implies corruption and shonkey dealings at fund raisers and showroom fetes and as such Key deserves to be subject to intense public scrutiny and even trial by media in the same way that the Key led and Crosby-Textor directed National Party pilloried Helen Clark over “Paintergate” and “Speedergate” neither of which had credible substance in the manner that this BMW scandal has.
19. Frank Macskasy 19

    12 May 2011 at 12:49 am

    Interesting that Key lays the blame for this “donation” on Labour.

    Yet Labour didn’t receive the donation – National did.

    Where is the much-vaunted “personal responsibility” that the Right Wing always rabbit on about?
20. Adrian 20

    12 May 2011 at 8:22 am

    Does BMWNZ own some part of McMillan?. Does BMWNZ “organise” or “supply” financial services to its dealers? The whip around at the Key speech doesn’t seem credible, wouldn’t the people donating the money want to personally claim any tax advantage ( most would probably have the ability to do so), why “give” it to Team Mcm to donate it to Key? You are right, boy, this stinks. Let’s look for a “donation” from Mediaworks.
    • Big Bruv 20.1

      12 May 2011 at 11:55 am

      Adrian

      Perhaps the people attending the function were charged an entry fee and that money was donated to the National party against their wishes………..or does that only happen with union dues?

      BTW, how much do the unions owe the tax department?
      • Descendant Of Smith 20.1.1

        12 May 2011 at 6:07 pm

        BTW, how much do the unions owe the tax department?

        A darn site less than businessmen do.

        That doesn’t make either right but in a comparative it’s minute compared to the amount businesses owe.

        The papers have examples every week of businesses owing substantial amounts and the banks example last year of having to pay millions of ripped off tax back should remind you that businesses have ripped off the tax payer for years.

        The money regained from the Winebox inquiry was more than equivalent to the $20-00 per week benefit cuts that actually drove not only people into poverty but lots of small businesses under as that money was taken out of local economies.

        In the city I lived in at the time there were twenty businesses that I know of that went under within six months of those cuts.

        At least be consistent and moan about both.
21. Big Bruv 21

    12 May 2011 at 11:53 am

    My god you lot are getting desperate.

    Hipkins and Mallard told blatant lies in the house yesterday re the BMW purchase, both of them are well aware that there is no link at all between the dealer and the importer/distributor other than the franchise agreement.

    I know Labour are full of self serving parasitic unionists and a gaggle of gays but even I am surprised that they have resorted to something as low as this.

    I hope that the Nat’s fight back, I hope the gloves come off and we start seeing the Nat’s fight fire with fire.
    • Pascal's bookie 21.1

      12 May 2011 at 12:06 pm

      the nats are too busy ‘explaining’ at the moment bruv.
      • Big Bruv 21.1.1

        12 May 2011 at 12:23 pm

        Yes Pascal they are.

        However, the two clowns who attacked the government over the BMW deal are idiots, they clearly demonstrate why Labour have no real idea what goes on in the business world.

        There is no benefit at all for the Auckland dealer in the renewal of the BMW contract to supply new replacement vehicles, never has been and never will be, the deal is always done directly with the importer or manufacturer, indeed, were it my business I would be challenging Mallard and Hipkins to repeat what they said outside the house.

        However…..Both Mallard and Hipkins are too stupid to realise that they may well be onto something here, if only they were smart enough to ask the right questions……….but they’re not.
        • Pascal's bookie 21.1.1.1

          12 May 2011 at 12:27 pm

          hahaha. Suck it up ya big sook.

          Remember when ya’ll were calling labour stupid for going after Wong?
          • Big Bruv 21.1.1.1.1

            12 May 2011 at 12:46 pm

            Pascal

            You seem to be as stupid as Mallard and Hipkins, to you the fact that these two morons are making a bit of noise is all that matters when there are other questions that should be being asked.

            As I said, it is a pity that Labour are not smart enough to ask those questions. 🙂
            • Pascal's bookie 21.1.1.1.1.1

              12 May 2011 at 1:02 pm

              You’re not smart enough to put words in my mouth bruv.

              How’s the battle going with the oxalis, BTW?
              • Big Bruv …

                12 May 2011 at 1:09 pm

                Pascal

                Perhaps I am not, however even I can see the obvious questions that Hipkins and Mallard should be asking.

                As I said….it is a pity they are stupid.

                Oxalis…seems to be making a return, however it is nowhere near as bad as it had been, the up side is that the winter veges are coming along well.
                • Pascal's bookie …

                  12 May 2011 at 1:25 pm

                  Yeah, it pays not to think you’ve got the job done after the first round. Same with oxalis.

                  Waiting and seeing, then pronouncing.
                • Lanthanide …

                  12 May 2011 at 1:26 pm

                  It’ll be back with a vengeance in spring and summer. The only way to get rid of it is to dig it out – all of the tiny little bulbs. Or use special-purpose weedkiller on it. Good luck.
22. Tiger Mountain 22

    12 May 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Ah, Bruv, who flipped your rock over today?

    This post is all about straight forward questions that have been asked of the PM about a suspiciously timed corporate donation. The answers so far from Shonkey are defensive. Do share your smarter questions with us by all means….
    • Big Bruv 22.1

      12 May 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Tiger

      So you are not smart enough to work it our for yourself either?
    • The Voice of Reason 22.2

      12 May 2011 at 1:28 pm

      Bugger all chance of Bruv fronting up, TM. The questions only exist in his head and they don’t last long there, because nature abhors a vacuum.
      • Big Bruv 22.2.1

        12 May 2011 at 1:40 pm

        Voice

        I love reading your comments, they only reinforce the stereotype that so many have of the Labour party, arrogant and out of touch.

        If you had any business experience it would be blindingly obvious what questions Hipkins should be asking, as I said, I suspect the moron has stumbled onto something that may have legs and but he (and the Labour party) are not smart enough to realise it.
        • Colonial Viper 22.2.1.1

          12 May 2011 at 5:41 pm

          I love reading your comments, they only reinforce the stereotype that so many have of the Labour party, arrogant and out of touch.

          Arrogant and out of touch. You mean like the PM saying that the use of Food Banks is a “lifestyle choice”? While he buys new BMWs? 🙂
23. randal 23

    12 May 2011 at 1:07 pm

    the big question is how long do we have to put up with this gang of neanderthals who see government as a way of lining their own pockets and not how to care for the people.
    • Big Bruv 23.1

      12 May 2011 at 1:10 pm

      Lol…and Labour care for ‘the people’ do they?

      What a lot of rubbish, even some of your own MP’s can see that Labour are nothing more than a bunch of self serving unionists and a gaggle of gays.
24. Wiseacre 24

    12 May 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Interesting information courtesy of Barry Soper:

    “Now this is neither here nor there and isn’t intended to be a smear or anything else, just a point of interest. The boss of BMW NZ Ltd is a chap called Mark Gilbert and it just so happens he lives in a pretty ritzy Auckland neighbourhood.

    He’s the next door neighbour of none other than the State Homie himself. Oh and on the neighbour on the other side is Bob McMillan, the man who donated the money to the Tories.”
25. Adrian 25

    12 May 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Don’t go so hard on BB, he may be on to something ” people may have been charged an entry fee” to the BMW wankfest to hear Key speak. Is Key getting paid for speaking engagements?
    • Pascal's bookie 25.1

      12 May 2011 at 1:49 pm

      Yeah, there’s a few wrinkles. Is the PM aware of the identities of donors to the National Party, and why is John Key speaking as PM to clients of a donor; amoungst other interesting questions. There’s all sorts of backscratching tickly poo going on, but bruvs funny; coz it’s cute when he thinks he’s got a secret.

      Like I said, waiting and seeing, getting denials, waiting, seeing, repeat.

      Remember Wong?
26. Adrian 26

    12 May 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Being paid for speaking is enough to get his slippery arse thrown out of the job. I wonder if his agent is Stephen Joyce?
27. SHG 27

    12 May 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Imperator Fish:

    Labour’s attempt to smear John Key over a $50,000 donation appears to have backfired badly.

    If you’re going to attempt to tarnish the reputation of a prime minister as publicly loved as Key is, then you should make sure your evidence is good. Otherwise you run the risk of looking desperate and cynical.

    Labour is now insinuating that the donation may have been motivated by a desire to secure the right to sell the old BMWs, once the new ones are delivered. But that’s just conjecture. It might have been smarter politically if Labour had kept quiet and waited to see what happened to the old BMWs, before going public. If the donor company had ended up in the future securing the rights to sell those BMWs then the timing of the donation would probably have precipitated a major crisis for Key once it became public. Now we’ll probably never know, because the donor dealer would be mad to go near those cars now.

    The other problem Labour has is that the media will seize upon the merest whiff of a scandal. Labour should probably have focused all their attentions on attacking John Key’s pre-budget speech yesterday, but instead gave the news media something else to run with. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if you give the media two stories and only one of them involves allegations of sleaze, the sleaze story will take the headlines. But when that story doesn’t have any substance the media will inevitably turn the tables and make the story all about another failed Labour mud-flinging exercise. And about how woeful Labour are.

    http://www.imperatorfish.com/2011/05/fighting-last-war.html
    • r0b 27.1

      12 May 2011 at 5:27 pm

      With all due respect to Imperator Fish, s/he is simply wrong on that one.

      Last night’s One News led with the Nats Kiwisaver cuts, and critiques of it, as it should. Then it covered the BMW story, and raised questions about the Nats’ donation, as it should.

      Not a backfire on Labour, and it didn’t distract media from real issues (all over the papers today). But the $50K donation is another big hefty kick in the credibility nuts for National.
28. Big Bruv 28

    12 May 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Given the screams of faux outrage at the 50k donation can I assume that no left wing party will be taking a donation from the Unite union this year?

    After all, Unite still owe the tax man a hell of a lot of money.

    Or…does it not matter when the left are corrupt?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS