Caught in the ACT

48 comments on “Caught in the ACT ”

• Comments are now closed

1. appleboy 1

   24 October 2008 at 7:59 am

   watch for Wodney Hidenow to keep a low profile on this- he didn ‘t front on National radio today, and said through a spokesperson that they never thought free office space would be seen as a donation!!! Just who looks like a lying pillock now?
2. Robin Grieve 2

   24 October 2008 at 8:04 am

   David Benson Pope made the complaint against Act. This is his final hurrah before being bundled out of a job for lying. He’s not a bad chap I personally thought the tennis ball thing was blown up a bit too much but he got himself in a tangle, told a lie and was unceremoniously dumped by Labour. What stark contrast to Winston Peters who shows nothing of the loyalty David did, blatanly lied and continues to lie and Labour cow tow to this man and his corrupt and arrogent practices. You got to wonder at the morality in this two faced rather dihonest approach from Helen Cark. Of course it only makes sense when you factor in her lying about her involvement in it all. Who can you trust heh, seems David Benson Pope may have been guilty of nothing his leader hasn’t done.
3. higherstandard 3

   24 October 2008 at 8:12 am

   So ACT managed to get some free office space to save them (and the taxpayer ?) some money good on them – I hope the other political parties are managing to do the same thing.
4. Robinsod 4

   24 October 2008 at 8:14 am

   HS – weak.
5. Nick 5

   24 October 2008 at 8:19 am

   It was not a donation to the party, rather a donation to the parliamentary section which has a parliamentary services budget separate to that of the party.

   There is no equivalence with NZ First. There is a reasonable argument (even though it wasn’t accepted) about whether free Out of Parliament office space for MPs (which by definition should not be used for political or campaign activity) should be included as a party donation. There is no argument over receiving large sums of money directly to the party and not declaring them.
6. Robinsod 6

   24 October 2008 at 8:26 am

   Ha – I spy DPF’s gymnastic talking points…
7. vidiot 7

   24 October 2008 at 8:36 am

   The commission said ACT got free office space from Sir Robert for a number of years until 2005, at a value of approximately $20,000 per annum.

   It was a party donation and was not included in ACT New Zealand’s annual returns of donations for the relevant years, the decision said.

   It said ACT must file amended returns.

   Oh wow, slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket.

   So how about that Herald Digi-poll then ?

   Labour’s 37 per cent poll figure means it would be able to muster 54 seats with the Progressives and the Greens.

   The Maori Party, with four seats, would not hold the balance of power. Nor would it do so if it won all seven Maori seats but stayed on its 2.4 per cent poll rating in the party vote.
8. Tane 8

   24 October 2008 at 8:40 am

   Yeah, I’ll get something up on that when the full results (including seats) come online. No need to threadjack.
9. Nick 9

   24 October 2008 at 8:40 am

   Busted!

   But true nevertheless.
10. Joanne Proctor 10

    24 October 2008 at 8:40 am

    The headline I’m waiting to see?

    “Hide’s Act Ups Winston’s Sympathy Vote”

    Just while I’m here…can anybody work out why Lockwood Smith had to apologise to the distaff side of the maori Party co leadership?

    Its quite a punishment though. Perhaps Keys should apologise to Turea for refusing to do a post election deal with Peters. In fact Turea should just become the go-to person for apologies: a sort of one person reconciliation and apology commission.

    I think she’s a cultural fundamentalist! (oops….sorry Mrs Turea)
11. higherstandard 11

    24 October 2008 at 8:47 am

    sod

    Thank you for caring
12. Lampie 12

    24 October 2008 at 8:48 am

    “Rodney”
    “yes Roger”
    “the kettle is indeed black”
    “damn”
13. Janet 13

    24 October 2008 at 8:48 am

    A bit off topic but there is a great article and photo in the Dom Post today about a brave 17 year old Labour activist standing up to his National/ Act supporting father.The bullying father has money and power on his side (and lies about his son not being a taxpayer) but the kid’s idealism reflects so much of what is happening out there – that the young left is on the ascendant.
    Is probably also on the stuff website.
14. Tim Ellis 14

    24 October 2008 at 8:56 am

    There is a reasonable argument (even though it wasn’t accepted) about whether free Out of Parliament office space for MPs (which by definition should not be used for political or campaign activity) should be included as a party donation.

    I think Act should have got clarification from the electoral commission on this before filing their returns. If in doubt, declare it. If there’s ANY prospect that it could be considered a donation–and I think there was always a degree of prospect that it might be–then you should get a ruling from the EC on it.
15. exbrethren 15

    24 October 2008 at 8:56 am

    So Bob Jones gave free office space to the officially guilty Rodney Hide. The righties may not like it and say its a nothing offence but he is guilty.

    Suggestions of collusion between these two, maybe Jones wasn’t happy that he didn’t get the influence he wanted from Winston and it was payback. There should be a charge laid on these two of wasting police time, a spot of clink would do them the world of good.

    I have a suspicion about Owen Glenn as well. Maybe he was promised his Monaco office by a potential Key / Douglas government in return for causing merry hell against Winston.

    Whatever the motives of Jones, Glenn and Hide it seems that Winston will be able to peddle his line about there being a conspiracy to get him with some justification (ie both SFO & Electoral Commission finding no offence).

    So Key’s rush to judgement (or political grandstanding if you prefer) has backfired, leaving him to deal with only an officially crooked party (and maybe Mr Boring) only.
16. Matthew Pilott 16

    24 October 2008 at 8:57 am

    Janet – the tory even forgot about GST, not to mention that until you’re in the Real World and have a Real Man’s Job you Don’t Pay Tax. Funny that he has to lie to try and out-argue his 17 year-old!

    Robin, not sure if comprehension is your forte, but this was about ACT. Do you just select threads at random and post whatever’s rockin’ your noggin’ at the time?
17. Tim Ellis 17

    24 October 2008 at 8:59 am

    Come on Carol, there’s no need to ham it up. I thought it was an interesting story. It has nothing to do with money and power, or bullying. If it had been, then the story would have been about how the father had removed the Labour Party sign the 17 year old had put up on the family home. But it wasn’t.

    On the one side of the story we have an enthusiastic young 17 year old who votes Labour. On the other side we have a father who supports National. They have robust debates at home about it. Nobody’s views get suppressed or bullied.
18. Tim Ellis 18

    24 October 2008 at 9:00 am

    That’s defamatory, exbrethren.
19. higherstandard 19

    24 October 2008 at 9:02 am

    Janet and Mat

    Having read the same article they seem like a pretty normal family to me with the son and the Father have a bit of fun at each others expense – how you get a bullying tory father out of the story is beyond me.

    Perhaps you should report him to the police based on the photo in the dompost.
20. exbrethren 20

    24 October 2008 at 9:05 am

    Tim read it properly. Unlike Hide, Jones, Key & Glenn I haven’t stated categorically that they are guilty of anything. But I find it suspect that Jones instigated all this while giving free space to the MP who wasted police time. Jones will probably use his stock excuse of being drunk and not properly remembering anything though.
21. searching 21

    24 October 2008 at 9:07 am

    Is this the same John Bowie who formally practiced as a lawyer until he was convicted of fraud?
22. Janet 22

    24 October 2008 at 9:12 am

    Tim, H/S
    Power – parental and having a bigger sign, wealth -could afford a builder to install his sign while son put his own one up, bullying – uses his power, size and parental influence to overrule his son who is less powerful and much smaller. The picture may be of a play struggle between older and younger person but the overbearing bullying symbolism is obvious.
23. Paul 23

    24 October 2008 at 9:17 am

    Lampie, I came here to make a comment, nothing more can be said after your comment, they should have turned off comments after your gem.

    Brilliant.
24. higherstandard 24

    24 October 2008 at 9:20 am

    Janet

    I’m sure you’re taking the piss if however you aren’t I’d suggest you are the most soppy twit I’ve encountered for a long time.
25. Lucky 25

    24 October 2008 at 9:22 am

    The Tory in today’s paper, John Bowie, has done time in the clanger for fraud and been struck off as a lawyer. Yet he hangs a billboard of Stephen Franks on his front yard.

    So much for tough on crime.
26. MikeE 26

    24 October 2008 at 9:23 am

    Serious, non partisan question.

    So does that mean Labour would be in breech if it recieves sub market rent for any of the multiple buildings labour controlled trusts and asscocations own up and dow? Or would that be exempt?
27. vidiot 27

    24 October 2008 at 9:30 am

    MikeE – an interesting question you raise there, if they were paying a ‘nominal fee’ only for the properties and not a market rent, then yes, I think they should be in the gun for it. And now, why do you ask that questions ?
28. Lampie 28

    24 October 2008 at 9:40 am

    Cheers Paul
29. the sprout 29

    24 October 2008 at 9:45 am

    i wonder if our intrepid and insightful msm ‘journalists’ understand just what gullible pawns in all this they really are?

    Bob Jones and Owen Glenn have played them like fiddles.
30. Janet 30

    24 October 2008 at 9:54 am

    H/S
    Abuse – that’s what’s bullies resort to when they know they are losing.
31. burt 31

    24 October 2008 at 9:59 am

    The next govt need to change the law so that the time restrictions for laying charges is longer. Rodney should have been charged for this. It’s a disgrace that MP’s can walk away with no consequecnes when they flout the law.

    Why not have 7 years as the time limit?
32. higherstandard 32

    24 October 2008 at 10:07 am

    Yes Janet – all’s well though as the aliens are coming to put me in my place.
33. higherstandard 33

    24 October 2008 at 10:09 am

    Burt that will never happen as they would have to set themselves up to be charged as well.
34. vidiot 34

    24 October 2008 at 10:11 am

    Why not have 7 years as the time limit?

    Because most of the Good MP’s seem have a shorter shelf life than that ?

    But yes, it should be extended to at least 24 months.
35. Ianmac 35

    24 October 2008 at 10:32 am

    Lampie @8:48: Well said again!
    Rodney. You realize that you are rilly rilly tough on crime?
    Yep. Of course I am. That’s where the votes are.
    Ah Rodney. You have committed a crime the EC have said.
    Na. Naa. That’s different. Its Winston who has……..
    Rodney. Are you obsessed with Winston?
    Na. Its where the votes are stupid! Crime Buster….
36. appleboy 36

    24 October 2008 at 10:41 am

    Did anyone note that The Dominion carried the ‘Winston is Innocent’ story at the bottom of page 2 buried in the second paragraph of their story that ACT were found guilty (credit where it’s due at least). After months of prejudging and giving front page after front page to ‘Winston is Guilty stories’..incredible. Is this about as blatant and plain a display of bias and deception as it gets? This now secures a 5% vote for Winston. Thanks Wodney.
37. Lampie 37

    24 October 2008 at 10:55 am

    “Lampie @8:48: Well said again!
    Rodney. You realize that you are rilly rilly tough on crime?
    Yep. Of course I am. That’s where the votes are.
    Ah Rodney. You have committed a crime the EC have said.
    Na. Naa. That’s different. Its Winston who has ..
    Rodney. Are you obsessed with Winston?
    Na. Its where the votes are stupid! Crime Buster .”

    hahahaha
38. Felix 38

    24 October 2008 at 11:01 am

    hs,

    I don’t mean to be rude to you, as you may not be aware of it but there is quite an obvious pattern in your comments of being, shall we say, a bit intolerant of ideas raised by women.

    It seems that if Janet were posting as a male, you would likely have questioned her definitions or application of terms instead of going immediately to personal insults.

    Again, I realise you may not be aware of it and I’m not trying to wind you up but the pattern is very obvious and not particularly pleasant.
39. higherstandard 39

    24 October 2008 at 11:10 am

    Felix

    If Janet had posted under a mans name I would have called him an idiot in the first place rather than the comment I made.

    Stupid is stupid whether the commenter is a male or a female.

    There are a number of posters that post under female names that make sensible reasoned comments Janet and Eve do not belong to that group just as Randal and his ilk aren’t among the sensible commenters from a male perspective.
40. higherstandard 40

    24 October 2008 at 11:12 am

    And fell free not to read my comments if they offend you it’s a free blog – or at least close to it according to Lynn.

    [lprent: Cheap and efficient to run (provided I don’t have to write the posts).
    Provided as a free service to the discerning user (roughly translated is that we ban peoples arses if we consider people are abusing the discussion space.]
41. ghostwhowalks 41

    24 October 2008 at 11:12 am

    Notice too that Rodney last week admitted that he ‘donated’ his appearance fee for dancing with stars to the Remuera Rackets Club .

    No mention of this money he earned as outside work to his job as an electorate MP in the register of pecuniary interest for 2006 or 2007 ( DWTS was shown in april 2006).

    Has Hide lied about his outside income and NOT DECLARED it

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/FinInterests/

    Jan 2007

    Rodney HIDE (ACT, Epsom)
    2 Interests (such as shares and bonds) in companies and business entities
    Tower Limited insurance
    Contact Energy Limited electricity production
    6 Real property
    Home, Auckland
    7 Superannuation schemes
    Sovereign Assurance Company
    10 Overseas travel costs
    United Kingdom political think tanks
    Germany Parliament and FDP representatives
    Ireland Progressive Democrats and Parliament
    The above countries were one overseas visit. Qantas and Air New Zealand airpoints contributed to
42. jo zinny 42

    24 October 2008 at 11:22 am

    appleboy, Wodney Hidenow.. hilarious!

    higherstandard, disappointing response.. no free lunches..remember? JK used it this time around. Former ACT guy Shirley reknowned for it and I daresay many acters still do use it. which kind of leaves you frayed at the edges.. and possibly flayable hereon in..

    vidiot, diversionary.. tho not to worry, crappier cometh..

    exbrethren, “rush to judgement” or snap decision or whatever for JK = good reading!

    for myself, wasn’t wodney so quiet and ‘let’s talk economics’ to Kathryn Ryan. face it folks, he wouldna have a show talking to Alan Greenspan. Nor would his wannabe the next kiwi finance minister—not after AG’s latest admission he got it wrong these past forty years..
43. Dom 43

    24 October 2008 at 11:30 am

    gww – interesting point.

    Why did the Remmers club need a donation anyway? From their site:

    “Remuera Racket Club is one of New Zealand’s premier tennis and squash clubs. We offer a warm, friendly atmosphere for both the professional and social player.

    Established in 1907, Remuera Rackets Club has built a reputation for being the leading provider of quality tennis and squash facilities to the people of Auckland. The club caters for all levels of ability while placing an emphasis on the “family”, and the support and development of younger players.”

    Yeah, they sound just like the type of business who could use some charity…
44. randal 44

    24 October 2008 at 11:39 am

    ha this is fun. send $50 and I’ll tell you what nearly happened to me in the weekend
45. the sprout 45

    24 October 2008 at 11:41 am

    good point ghostwhowalks.

    let’s see which valiant defender of democracy in the msm takes it up.
46. jo zinny 46

    24 October 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Oops, forgot to add that’s Kathryn Ryan @ nine-2-noon on radionz

    AND

    this is the link to Alan Greenspan, former US Federal Reserve boss(retired 2006), who’s talking to the US Congress.
47. Evidence-Based Practice 47

    24 October 2008 at 2:07 pm

    After reading this this entire thread there are two points I would like to note

    The article in the Dominion Post on the young boy and his father has caused a lot of comment in my workplace. I would be interested to know whether it is true that if the father has been convicted of fraud, why did he expose himself to potential ridicule in this way (which has been the general consensus here) and will someone from National answer the soft on crime point made by Lucky?

    Secondly there is an unsavoury undercurrent of sexism coming through from many of the commentators of the right. I thought NZ had moved on from such attitudes.
48. outofbed 48

    24 October 2008 at 2:17 pm

    http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4330/
    Greens on 11.5% yeah

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS