Elitist Fools

Written By: - Date published: 11:18 pm, March 12th, 2014 - 142 comments
Categories: corruption - Tags:

So the latest from National is Judith Collins ‘promoting’ her husband’s company and Amy Adams promoting the interests of river-polluting Canterbury dairy farms when she herself owns Canterbury dairy farms.

Naturally, neither minister can see any problem with this and so the take-home message from these grubby episodes underlines an essential truth of this National government.

That essential truth is that National is a party composed of privileged elites who only serve privileged elites. If you are outside of the privileged, wealthy elite in NZ, then this National government couldn’t care less about you.

Now I know I’m not saying anything that we didn’t already know, but to have two such examples in quick succession really drives home the point. And of course, in an election year this point needs to be made again and again.

 

Update: The Herald has broken a story about National’s immigration Minister – at the time, Nathan Guy – intervening to get citizenship for a businessman who subsequently donated $22,000 to the party. This government is looking increasingly corrupt.

142 comments on “Elitist Fools ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    12 March 2014 at 11:44 pm

    Nailed it. The arrogance is expected, the greed is also no surprise our MSM seem to just rate the quality of the BS now.

    Across the ditch these facts would be used to beat ministers to a pulp, relentlessly with the vigour one gets from professionals doing their job.

    • RedLogix 1.1
      12 March 2014 at 11:57 pm

      Exactly. The Aussie media gave it good bash, her CoS resigned, the Senate passed a motion of censure – and Tony Abbot pretends it’s all ok:

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/senator-nash-censured-amid-food-rating-fallout/5301036

      But otherwise I agree, Geoff has nailed it. The question is; does anyone in this country care anymore?

      • tc 1.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 1:42 am

        Lets face it, once key got away with tranzrail, blinglish double dipping, ecan and sticking 2 fingers to those who dared to ask why worth was sacked as outliners they’ve pretty much done as pleased knowing they have a free ride from the MSM.

        A few tough interviews is the most any nact minister seems to get then the MSM chase another car, or wave a flag.

    • Blue 1.2
      13 March 2014 at 11:10 am

      Our MSM is joyfully focusing on Key as Mr Strong Man Leader for his hardarse, macho frowns of disapproval for Collins.

      It is truly amazing watching how they can turn absolutely anything into a ringing endorsement for Key. North Korea would employ them in a heartbeat.

  2. Populuxe1 2
    13 March 2014 at 12:41 am

    All political parties are composed of privileged elites. Are you new?

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.1
      13 March 2014 at 1:13 am

      You misrepresent Geoff’s message Populuxe1.

      Not all political parties are composed of privileged elites who only serve privileged elites.

      I hope that people in the voting population have the intelligence to discern the difference – between what class a politician is categorised in versus their intentions, policies and actions – that the voting population have more capacity for discernment than your sorry excuse for a comment conveys you do.

      • Populuxe1 2.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 6:28 pm

        I grant you the possible exception of the Greens and to a certain extent MANA (although Hone has already blotted the copybook in terms of tribal elites and a certain sojourn in Paris), but methinks it might only be a waiting game. Bronze gods have clay feet and power corrupts. The rest are as self-serving and supportive of the system as a corrupt thing being corrupt on national corrupt day.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.1.1.1
          13 March 2014 at 6:43 pm

          Be that as it may – and Populuxe, it is kind of easy quoting a fairly universal concept – yet your comment distracts from the fact that there is no contest regarding this government versus any of the left wing parties as to which are more prone to corruption.

          The left have a clearly more principled take on politics in general and based on understanding – this is a feature of the left wing (and sometimes why they are not so great at appealing to those who do not take such an intellectual approach to things ) The right don’t even appear to understand political or democratic principles – let alone base their policies or behaviour on them – especially this current government. The members of the left may not be perfect, yet they are going to be a damn sight less corrupted and corrupting than this current government.

          I have absolutely no doubt that the current leftwing parties are infinately more trustworthy than the current bunch of zombies making up this government and the right wing of NZ.

          I am 100% sure of this.

          • Populuxe1 2.1.1.1.1
            13 March 2014 at 7:14 pm

            The only way my comment could possibly be considered a distraction from anything is if you are an idiot and inclined to go “oooh, shiny” if I jangle my car keys. Labour is supposedly a party of the “Left” (snort) – do you really want me to enumerate their iniquities, many of which are as bad, or, in some cases, worse, than National. English’s double dipping pales in insignificance compared with Philip Taito Field’s shenanigans and to pretend it doesn’t is to be grossly hypocritical. To not trust NACT is a sensible, nay sane, thing to do. To blindly trust any political party without question is either madness or idiocy.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.1.1.1.1.1
              14 March 2014 at 2:01 am

              Nope it is simply that you haven’t worked out how your comment might be a distraction other than something unintelligible and disconnected about car keys.

              You distract from assessing the real state of the current political parties by putting forward the view that all people are capable of corruption. This is not solely a distraction; it is a cop out.

              • Populuxe1 …
                14 March 2014 at 9:08 am

                No, it’s an opinion – one largely proven by history

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  14 March 2014 at 2:36 pm

                  It is an opinion expressed in a particular conversation – the expression of which leads to the avoidance of assessing the real state of the current political parties , whose interests they are most likely to follow.

                  This conversation helps those who wish for the interests of the greatest number of NZers to be addressed as opposed to a small group of privileged elite to decide which party is best to vote for. You appear to want to avoid such a conversation from concluding anything of clarity.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    14 March 2014 at 2:43 pm

                    Sigh
                    This is the internet. This blog is quite capable of supporting more than parallel argument spawned by any particular post. If you don’t like it, don’t join the thread, scroll down and start a new one. It’s really not that difficult. Join the 21st century infobahn, plox. K’thanx’bi

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      14 March 2014 at 2:51 pm

                      If I didn’t like it I wouldn’t post comments here.

                      Your comment here, like many others of yours I have been responding to are full of unfounded assumptions and thus don’t respond accurately or very intelligibly to the comments I have made.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 March 2014 at 3:44 pm

                      So basically you demand the right to comment however you see fit, but would deny me that same right? What an arsebramble.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      14 March 2014 at 5:12 pm

                      Populuxe1

                      I am pleased that I have the opportunity to comment – where do I demand the right to comment?

                      Where do I deny you the same right?

                      Oh dear, you are indulging in false accusation and empty imaginings again.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 March 2014 at 6:20 pm

                      I really can’t be bothered arguing semantics with someone who is only arguing to get the last word. Do what you like. I’m bored.

        • geoff 2.1.1.2
          13 March 2014 at 7:27 pm

          In general I might be inclined to agree with you, Pop.
          But my opinion of the Labour party as it stands today is that some very good, very principled people are now occupying pivotal roles within the party and are now controlling the direction of the party in a way which is much more in keeping with how the members and affiliates would like it.
          So your generalisation as applied to the present Labour party doesn’t hold water with me.

    • Paul 2.2
      13 March 2014 at 7:12 am

      When shit happens, the right try to diffuse by smearing all politicians.
      I don’t see Green or Mana MPs doing stuff like thiis.

      • marty mars 2.2.1
        13 March 2014 at 8:34 am

        Exactly – the ‘right’ think everyone is like them but that’s because they need everyone to be like them to justify (in their own minds) the shit things they think and do to others.

      • Te Reo Putake 2.2.2
        13 March 2014 at 10:26 am

        To be fair, these are issues of misuse of power. The Greens and mana have none. Yet.

        • Populuxe1 2.2.2.1
          13 March 2014 at 6:17 pm

          Hone does, if we’re going to be honest – that little Paris detour for example

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.2.2.2
          13 March 2014 at 6:59 pm

          Oh come on TRP! – the extent of the problems that have occurred under this government’s watch – the extent of NZ interests that have been ignored . (GCSB, Asset sales, tax cuts, treatment of those on welfare….)..there has been a constant and endless river of misuse of power being displayed by this government.

          To be fair – your attempt at being fair has ended up giving far too much allowance to this current government – and thus ends up being not fair at all.

          • Populuxe1 2.2.2.2.1
            13 March 2014 at 7:26 pm

            “To be fair – your attempt at being fair has ended up giving far too much allowance to this current government – and thus ends up being not fair at all.”

            Pay attention, class. This is what is known as The Fallacy of Relative Privation
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

            It is a subset of The Moral Equivalence Fallacy
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

            Both are quite poisonous and should not be touched or handled unsupervised in any way. If you see either of these you should keep away from it and tell a teacher.
            Inevitably the presence of either or both of these will lead to an evocation of Godwin’s Law
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

            All of which may be categorised as examples of Poe’s Law
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

            If you should accidentally encounter an example of Poe’s Law, wash your hands afterwards.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 2.2.2.2.1.1
              13 March 2014 at 7:43 pm

              @ Populuxe1

              Oh dear the simple point I made appears to have flown right over your head.

              The fallacy of relative privation is an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent’s argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion.

              Please point to where I suggested that an opponent’s argument should be ignored?

              Moral equivalence: “They use history, possibly selectively, to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy.They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way. These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil.”

              Where have I justified any misuse of power by Labour?

              I was simply suggesting that TRP’s comment didn’t get the balance of fairness correct.

              • Populuxe1 …
                13 March 2014 at 8:38 pm

                Please point to where I suggested that an opponent’s argument should be ignored?

                The point at which you suggest National is far, far worse (which is ironic for someone who accused me of distraction for raising the issue). As if that means one shouldn’t spend some time criticising anyone else.

                Where have I justified any misuse of power by Labour?

                Now that’s classic Onus Probandi – or as good as a Straw Man. See above.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  14 March 2014 at 1:45 am

                  No Populuxe your assessment of my comment involves assumptions on your part.

                  In order to achieve fairness in an assessment of the misuse of power of a political party- which is what TRP was commenting about- is to acknowledge not only that two sides may be guilty of it – it requires also the extent to which each one is guilty.

                  For example one party might take away the privacy rights of an entire Nation whilst telling them they are doing it ‘for their own good’ or another example – they might abuse the hell out of the most vulnerable when there is a recession and few jobs-such as making it more difficult to gain financial assistance or mislead the public into viewing that joblessness was the fault of those without jobs and not policy failure by successive governments – such actions require the coordinated effort of a number of members of said party. This might be compared with another party that might contain an offender/s that abuses their position of power to gain cheaper workers in their business -for example.

                  None of these cases of abuse of power is a good thing, all would be best avoided, yet to use such a comparison and conclude that both parties are ‘elites that only work for elite interests’ due to both parties containing a misuse of power without measuring the extent of that abuse – leads to an absurdity.

                  And before you attempt it – to quote something that occurred 30+ years ago and compare it to the current behaviour of another party doesn’t quite cut it as far as an accurate analysis of the contemporary state of the two main political parties of NZ either.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    14 March 2014 at 9:23 am

                    You mean like Labour took away Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed when they were last in government, their obvious enthusiasm for the TPPA, their refusal to renationalise assets should they be elected? Just because all things except the speed of light are relative doesn’t mean you can talk utter rubbish as though it doesn’t matter.
                    The Field affair was 5 years ago. David Parker’s Robert Walters Finance Breakfast Speech was 2 years ago. If by 30+ years ago you mean Labour IV/ACT I – I haven’t mentioned it once – ancient history – you are the first person to bring it up. I think you might want to stay away from philosophy in future, you’re not very good at it.
                    Please stop interpreting my criticism of Labour as support for National – that’s simplistic, binary, and untrue. As Emily Bronte wrote in her preface to Jane Eyre: “Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns.”

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      14 March 2014 at 2:25 pm

                      “You mean like Labour took away Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed when they were last in government”

                      Yes that was a bad one – It would have made TRP’s comment more relevant to have mentioned that one.

                      “their obvious enthusiasm for the TPPA”

                      From Press release from Labour on February 11 2014 :

                      “ ‘A Labour government would sign the TPPA if, and only if, it is in the best interests of New Zealand,’ David Cunliffe says.”

                      This is a fair and strong statement for a politician to make with regard to the TPPA issue.

                      “The Field affair was 5 years ago. David Parker’s Robert Walters Finance Breakfast Speech was 2 years ago.”

                      These two occurred when Labour were last in government and so holds more relevance for trying to evaluate what they would do when re-elected. (I mentioned the first one in response to your raising the subject)

                      I note that political parties, however, do have shifts in focus and this has occurred with Cunliffe as leader – so that has to be taken into consideration too – when trying to evaluate whether Labour are likely to be “privileged elites who only serve privileged elites.”

                      “If by 30+ years ago you mean Labour IV/ACT I – I haven’t mentioned it once –….”

                      Exactly, I was pre-empting something you might mention. This can be understood by the “Before you mention it” part of my comment.

                      “Please stop interpreting my criticism of Labour as support for National – that’s simplistic, binary, and untrue.”

                      If you scroll up – you can jog your memory as to who was objecting to whose comment in this particular line.

                      I haven’t said your criticism of Labour is support for National – although perhaps have viewed it as such – I have been trying to establish what is a fair analysis of Left vs National’s propensity for being a “privileged elites who only serve privileged elites”. This is a fairly binary issue – which requires looking at their actions and ideologies and the extent to which they display ‘serving the elites interests’

                      This is a relevant line of questioning for contemporary affairs because National is pushing the line that the Opposition parties are not to be trusted. Geoff has put forward that it is National who are not to be trusted because they only serve the interests of a privileged elite. and I hold the opinion that there is not much justification for the stance that the Left are less trustworthy than National.

                      You have been ignoring or not understanding the points I raise and based on this have falsely accused me of fallacies that I am not committing.

                      You appear to prefer to put forward poorly formulated lines of attack rather than read and understand the points I raise and address the important issue of which type of government are more likely to work in the interests of the greatest number of people rather than simply the interests of a few privileged elite.

                      I think that the answer to that question is pretty obvious.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 March 2014 at 2:49 pm

                      “ ‘A Labour government would sign the TPPA if, and only if, it is in the best interests of New Zealand,’ David Cunliffe says.”

                      Translation: We’ll sign it anyway because we have no balls, but we want to give the electorate the impression that we’re not scared of the Americans and the neoliberal lite faction aren’t pulling our strings.

                      These two occurred when Labour were last in government and so holds more relevance for trying to evaluate what they would do when re-elected. (I mentioned the first one in response to your raising the subject)

                      Um, no – do you do math? Parker’s speech was 2 (TWO) years ago – National has been in power for a bit longer than that, but keep trying.

                      As for the rest TL:DR because you’r just saying the same rubbish over and over, but I am having fun imagining you doing so with your mouth all puckered up disapprovingly like a dog’s arse.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      14 March 2014 at 3:00 pm

                      A fair concern re your translation. Guess the proof can only be discovered when they get in.

                      It is fairly clear that the neo-liberal interests of the world do not want them to get in – so I would hold it is better that they do

                      “As for the rest TL:DR because you’r just saying the same rubbish over and over, but I am having fun imagining you doing so with your mouth all puckered up disapprovingly like a dog’s arse.

                      I see you are wasting my time by not addressing the points I write and are rather more taken with your own empty imaginings. Good luck with that.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 March 2014 at 3:47 pm

                      Not the “neoliberal interests of this world”, you idiot, the neoliberal interests in the Labour party. Can’t you smell the Third Way on their breath despite a bit of Matt McCarten for camouflage?
                      If you make some new points I haven’t already already addressed, I will be glad to address them.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      14 March 2014 at 5:19 pm

                      I was aware you were talking about neo-liberal interests in the Labour party. I however was referring to something different and a real problem for Labour

                      e.g. Those that are wealthy and powerful and don’t appear to want anything nice or informative said about Cunliffe, Labour (or any other opposition party for that matter) in the papers and the many pseudo political and news programmes on TV [amongst other things].

                      “If you make some new points I haven’t already already addressed, I will be glad to address them.”

                      Why start now?

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 March 2014 at 6:24 pm

                      I think I’ll just leave to to talk to yourself. It seems to be your preferred mode of communication

    • North 2.3
      13 March 2014 at 10:00 am

      And all politically Left blogs have trolls like Popsicle who claim to be Left but in truth are just good old dyed-in-the-wool Tory anachronisms who relentlessly obfuscate on –

      (1) not seeing that they’re risible foot soldiers being fucked by their Tory idols just as grandly as everybody else is –

      (2) ridiculously believing throughout that no one sees through them –

      (3) behaving in this way because they’re insecure snobs – trudging twenty miles in a pair of borrowed boots to vote Tory – thereby establishing a putative superiority as a counter to their own sense of inadequacy.

      That is Popsicle. A wannabee member of the privileged Tory elite. Give it a break Pop’s. Your subliminal conversations with yourself add bugger all.

      • Populuxe1 2.3.1
        13 March 2014 at 6:20 pm

        Oh go blow a goat, North. I hate National and despise ACT, I just happen to be extremely cynical about politics in general and see the parties of the Left just as riven with inconsistancies and hypocrisy as the right is – I support the Left because it places social policy on par with economic policy, I just don’t do it blindly.

      • Chooky 2.3.2
        13 March 2014 at 7:31 pm

        @ North …thankyou!…..I really do like that phrase “Your subliminal conversations with yourself add bugger all”

        ….must remember it next time i have an argument with someone I know….smirk

      • Murray Olsen 2.3.3
        13 March 2014 at 10:12 pm

        Well said, North. What I can’t figure out is whether he genuinely considers himself leftwing or whether he genuinely considers he’s convinced us he is. Either way, the issue is academic at best.

        • Populuxe1 2.3.3.1
          13 March 2014 at 10:56 pm

          I don’t consider myself particularly one thing or the other, however I thing social policy should be of equal importance to economic policy. Rather than falling in with ideologues, I prefer to judge everything on the merist of how likely a policy is going to improve the lot of New Zealanders across the board. I have no interest in your No True Scotsman bullshit.

  3. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3
    13 March 2014 at 12:54 am

    Good one Geoff – there is a lot of dodginess and crap with this National government in plain sight and yet it is extremely good to keep pointing them out.

    Keeps the problematic nature of this government very clear in our minds.

    Repeat away – least we forget.

    Thank you

    • Chooky 3.1
      13 March 2014 at 3:23 pm

      +100…looks like corruption…same with Auckland City…I think Winnie is going to have a field day and romp in

      • Populuxe1 3.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 7:31 pm

        Len Brown is the perfect storm of trusting a politician too blindly simply because he supposedly supports your ideology.

  4. Sanctuary 4
    13 March 2014 at 6:51 am

    Gordon McLauchlan put his finger on it yesterday – a form of arrogant entitlement that means that people like Collins (and Hoskings with Skycity, it is rampant mindset) feel they don’t need to conform to the rules. They are above all that. Then when it dawns on them they are not, they get all obsequiously and insincerely sorry until they think they are safe, then it is business as usual.

  5. mickysavage 5
    13 March 2014 at 7:06 am

    The thing that bugs me about Adams is that she thinks it is fine because she is handling her conflict of interest according to the books. But she is part of a government that is making decisions which are increasing her already extraordinary wealth.

    • Wayne 5.1
      13 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

      mickysavage,

      Are you seriously suggesting that the only course she could have taken was to actually has to resign as a Minister, because she owns a farm in Canterbury that would benefit from irrigation.

      That it was not enough for her to state she would not participate in the decisions in Cabinet.

      If you take that proposition far enough it would also mean the a Cabinet cannot reduce tax rates, because Ministers would benefit.

      As an example of conflict issues benefiting a specific and defined group of people, it was agreed across the House the dairy farmers could take part in the Fonterra debates, even though they had a personal interest. The view was that the group advantaged was big enough to get beyond a personal interest as such.

      It seems to me that conflict of interest issues largely turn on whether there is a specific interest that a Minister might have that is not shared by many others who might be in a similar situation. As with the Fonterra situation. Obviously irrigation will benefit a smaller class of farmers, but Amy Adams took steps that meant she would not participate.

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 3:14 pm

        Do you think ms collins should resign from cabinet or be sacked from cabinet by key in light of his “higher standards” than labour promise of 2008?

        If not why not and how is it different from pansy wong.

      • Tracey 5.1.2
        13 March 2014 at 3:17 pm

        Have you read the adams thread? Its not as black and white as you think in terms of her stepping aside from influencing decisions.

      • mickysavage 5.1.3
        13 March 2014 at 4:07 pm

        I am suggesting Wayne that it is morally wrong for this Government to spend $400 million of our money on an irrigation scheme that will hurt the environment, damage the Rakaia river and result in further wealth being accumulated by already wealthy people, one of who is a Cabinet Minister.

        Can you justify this decision on what is good for the country as a whole? It is a huge amount of money for a limited area. I would prefer the money was spent on breakfasts in schools.

        It appears not to be a conflict issue as such. But it clearly shows what this Government’s priorities are.

        • geoff 5.1.3.1
          13 March 2014 at 7:12 pm

          Exactly MS.
          Unsurprisingly, Wayne simply doesn’t get it. Or perhaps he does but won’t admit it.

          The argument is not whether Amy Adams followed some particular rule.
          The argument is that National only supports the interests of wealthy elites because it is full to the brim with wealthy elites such as adams and collins.

        • Tracey 5.1.3.2
          14 March 2014 at 9:22 am

          Interesting to see what made him set aside his self imposed only comment on TPP in election year stance…

          • geoff 5.1.3.2.1
            14 March 2014 at 10:51 am

            And that he doesn’t question that National are privileged elites that only act in their own interests.

  6. Ross 6
    13 March 2014 at 7:16 am

    Collins was on Campbell Live last night. She showed no remorse at all for her actions. She only apologised to Key because he demanded she do so, not because she thinks she did anything wrong.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Judith-Collins-fronts-about-Oravida-visit/tabid/817/articleID/335642/Default.aspx

  7. Whateva next? 7
    13 March 2014 at 7:20 am

    Yes Geoff, you are right, we do all know, but now it is being revealed, and that is different( and a relief)

  8. Sanctuary 8
    13 March 2014 at 7:53 am

    Speaking of entitled privilege, all roads seem to lead to the king of the hill, John Banks…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11218598

    “…owever, one of Mr Liu’s business partners approached Mr Williamson and John Banks — the Mayor of Auckland at the time — and they wrote to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Nathan Guy, asking him to grant citizenship against the official advice…”

  9. Tracey 9
    13 March 2014 at 8:26 am

    Is key betraying his true ACT allegiances by reference to 3 strikes.

    Justice minister and lawyer misunderstood the rules… even if that were true that doesnt explain the only had a cuppa or glass of milk lie.

    There are at least 2 transgressions in this one incident alone…

    Breach of cabinet rules by conflict of interest
    Lying about amount of contact with oriveda

    wasnt clark supposed to dump peters for lying about a donation from glen?

    Governments and Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the Parliament and, ultimately, the public. Faced with today’s revelations, it is no longer acceptable for Mr Peters to offer bluster and insults where simple, courteous, honest answers are required.

    “It is no longer acceptable or credible for Helen Clark to assert a facade of confidence in her Foreign Affairs Minister and to fail to ask the plain questions of him that she has a duty to the public to ask.

    “Faced with today’s revelations, Helen Clark must stand Mr Peters down as a Minister. That is what I would do if I were Prime Minister.

  10. captain hook 10
    13 March 2014 at 8:55 am

    she is an expert at milking it and then creaming it.

  11. Tracey 11
    13 March 2014 at 9:10 am

    Nz is pretty small. Conflucts of interest are hard to avoid which is why, if in doubt, you declare it.

    If collins was in china on nz time that lunch and dinner could have been used for a much broader audience.

    Someone posted last week that if they could get a minister to visit their exporting business overseas they would move heaven and earth.

    How many more businesses would have benefitted by an above board organised function to showcase as many businesses as possible.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      13 March 2014 at 9:21 am

      What’s the point of buying the National Party if you don’t get special treatment?

      • Tracey 11.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 9:28 am

        That, sir, is the eternal problem. Hence you declare declare declare. Collins naive. BS and shame on the media for repeating it… unless it is to highlight how nonsensical that claim is

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1
          13 March 2014 at 10:08 am

          Yeah, but if Collins starts giving her cabinet colleagues all the details of her using her time as an MP to build a lucrative business career, they can no longer claim they were unaware of it, and it would raise too many questions about their own behaviour, Amy Adams.

          Plus, if you were the Chinese Minister of Justice and you had secret meetings with a New Zealand customs officer and business associates, you’d probably want it kept quiet too.

          Nothing to see here, nothing at all.

  12. One Anonymous Bloke 12
    13 March 2014 at 9:20 am

    If Corrupt Collins leant any further away from John Campbell she’d fall off her chair.

    How many meetings does one company need? Do you suppose it’s proportional to the amount donated to the National Party?

    “They’re close personal friends…”

    Arrogant and out of touch, to say nothing of unfit for office.

  13. Cancerman 13
    13 March 2014 at 9:20 am

    Bill Liu andShane Jones ring any bells? David Cunliffe was involved too if I remember. And Bill Liu is a much shadowier figure that this latest Donghua Liu who problem is not here enough and poor English.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      13 March 2014 at 9:23 am

      Ah, so “but but but Lllllaaaaabbbbboooouuuurrrr!”

      Fucking feeble. No wonder people say right wingers have low IQs.

      • Cancerman 13.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 9:33 am

        The opposite really. Any criticism on this, a small issue, by Labour reeks of hypocrisy. Which is becoming Labour’s brand at the moment unfortunately. National can just reply we let someone in who can’t speak English, opps, but Labour let in someone wanted by Interpol. Can’t see how that plays well to the undecided voter.

        • Tracey 13.1.1.1
          13 March 2014 at 9:38 am

          So you are saying if labour are hypocrits and that is wrong, it makes later hypocrisy by national ok? Cos that is what it reads as.

          Anyway, back to collins, what is your non hypocritical view on this? Feel free to use pansy wong as a comparison.

          • Cancerman 13.1.1.1.1
            13 March 2014 at 9:54 am

            No the Collins issue is a problem for National, although if, big if, all the information is out now I have a feeling they have got away with it. She is exceedingly close to having to stand down which would be significant dent for National.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1.1
              13 March 2014 at 10:11 am

              They can’t sack her: they all do it too, cf: Simon Lusk’s “lucrative business career”.

              Plenty more meat in this pie. I think the National Party may have forgotten to blow on it though 🙂

              • Cancerman …
                13 March 2014 at 10:38 am

                Collins has not committed a wrong because she has business interests. Its because she hasn’t declared the conflict of interest and been transparent. Most voters myself included don’t see a problem with them being business people. The problem is always lack of transparency. Finding lack of transparency can be hard to find and has to be over something substantial.

                • risildowgtn …
                  13 March 2014 at 10:51 am

                  Most voters bla da blah blah blah.. who are these you are speaking of behalf of?

                  cos it aint what I am hearing, my neighbours true blue tories farmers are even pissed

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  13 March 2014 at 11:59 am

                  You’re not paying attention, or perhaps it’s a comprehension problem. Lusk’s accusation is that National Party MPs use their elected positions for personal gain, and that this is normal expected practice for the National Party.

                  Trying to imply this means I’m anti business just demonstrates that you’ve got no defence.

            • RedLogix 13.1.1.1.1.2
              13 March 2014 at 10:14 am

              What I’m seeing is National adding a sub-text to their brand:

              “The world is full of corruption – and we are the only people you can trust to do it properly”

            • North 13.1.1.1.1.3
              13 March 2014 at 10:40 am

              You’d wager the farm on ALL the information being OUT now would you Cancerman ?

              Silly person. You HOPE rather than KNOW that. Prepare yourself for a career driving a Fonterra milk tanker to the farm you once owned. I’ll bet there’s much yet to be spilt. And not just in respect of our latest confessed dairy products consumer Collins.

              The collision of Entitlement and Exceptionalism and Mainchance produces a brew so intoxicating as to lead to carelessness.

              Calling BLiP calling BLiP……..how many of ShonKey Python’s cabinet ministers / MPs / support party MPs / operatives holding local body office, have been caught up in the appearance of ‘Smile & Wave & Invoice’.

              I await your List BLiP which to be comprehensively and fairly drawn should be predicated on a definition of ‘Invoice” which does not artificially limit ‘Invoice’ to the payment of actual $$$ donations to the National Party.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.2
          13 March 2014 at 9:45 am

          “Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour…”

          I’m not Labour, witless.

      • Tim 13.1.2
        13 March 2014 at 9:41 am

        I think what cancerman was trying to point out is that it is supreme hypocrisy to castigate National alone for this kind of infraction when this type of thing goes on in all political parties

        The point is it is appalling for any MP to be involved in these type of shenanigans regardless of whether you are left or right.

        We as a nation should hold all polititions to a higher standard, whether red, blue, or green. It is just not good enough

        • Tracey 13.1.2.1
          13 March 2014 at 12:17 pm

          Yes we should. Cancerman makes the mistake of assuming I support it when others do it. I dont.

    • Tracey 13.2
      13 March 2014 at 9:33 am

      Can you post the links to you stating there was nothing wrong with what jones did. TIA

    • Anker 13.3
      13 March 2014 at 4:23 pm

      David Cunliffe told the bureaucrats in the Immigration Dept to go back and do some more digging on Bill Liu.

      So he is in the clear actually

    • Murray Olsen 13.4
      13 March 2014 at 10:28 pm

      I’d be more than happy to see Shane Jones booted out of the Labour Party over that issue. His heart has already left anyway. However, an investigation found that corruption was not a factor. We haven’t seen investigations in the Collins, Adams, or Guy cases. Key decides all by himself. That’s a significant difference already.

  14. Tracey 14
    13 March 2014 at 9:29 am

    Lunch and dinner… cup of milk… on the taxpayer? How did she pay for this personal dinner and WHEN?

  15. Penny Bright 15
    13 March 2014 at 11:02 am

    FYI – my comment – yet to be published ………

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/bridges-edges-collins-favourite-replace-key-ck-153133%2

    What Minister of Justice – Judith Collins did – was not a ‘perceived conflict of interest’ – it was a REAL conflict of interest.

    In my considered opinion, as an anti-corruption campaigner, who has now attended three international anti-corruption conferences, listened to the experts, met the experts, studied the literature, and applied what I know to the New Zealand situation, I am sad to say that New Zealand is rotten with corruption, particularly at the highest levels.

    If ‘all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ – then God help us if Judith Collins ever became Prime Minister!

    The opportunities for ‘insider trading’ , for misuse of public office for private pecuniary gain, would be potentially enormous………..

    In my considered opinion, it is not ‘CRUSHER Collins, or CONNIVING Collins – it is CORRUPT Collins – end of story.

    If Prime Minister John Key does not sack her forthwith – from Parliament, never mind Cabinet, then, in my considered opinion, he too is guilty of a corrupt cover-up, and he too, is NOT ‘fit for duty’.

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption Public Watchdog’

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 15.1
      13 March 2014 at 11:26 am

      Yes ‘perception’ was clearly the catch-phrase National chose to deflect from what was really going on.

      National choose a word and then repeat it ad nauseam and the theory goes that is the word people remember in relation to the issue.

      National can’t win on substance – only through mind games – I hope NZers see through these ‘tricks’

      • Murray Olsen 15.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 10:35 pm

        I thought it was weird that Key said “accusations of the perception of a conflict of interest”, which I put down to his incomplete command of the English language. Then Collins used the same turn of phrase. Weird.

    • gnomic 15.2
      13 March 2014 at 10:29 pm

      “he too, is NOT ‘fit for duty’.”

      Well we knew that 🙂 In my considered opinion of course. It seems however that many NZers believe he’s doing great. Raising the paradox of a popular weasel.

  16. Penny Bright 16
    13 March 2014 at 11:02 am

    FYI – my comment – yet to be published ………

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/bridges-edges-collins-favourite-replace-key-ck-153133%2

    What Minister of Justice – Judith Collins did – was not a ‘perceived conflict of interest’ – it was a REAL conflict of interest.

    In my considered opinion, as an anti-corruption campaigner, who has now attended three international anti-corruption conferences, listened to the experts, met the experts, studied the literature, and applied what I know to the New Zealand situation, I am sad to say that New Zealand is rotten with corruption, particularly at the highest levels.

    If ‘all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ – then God help us if Judith Collins ever became Prime Minister!

    The opportunities for ‘insider trading’ , for misuse of public office for private pecuniary gain, would be potentially enormous………..

    In my considered opinion, it is not ‘CRUSHER Collins, or CONNIVING Collins – it is CORRUPT Collins – end of story.

    If Prime Minister John Key does not sack her forthwith – from Parliament, never mind Cabinet, then, in my considered opinion, he too is guilty of a corrupt cover-up, and he too, is NOT ‘fit for duty’.

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption Public Watchdog’

  17. Jo Cole 17
    13 March 2014 at 11:48 am

    I’m glad you’re telling us about corruption in the National Party, but you’re preaching to the choir here. I’d much rather see you do a far better job of telling the rest of New Zealand. You should be making a meal out of every opportunity they hand you, starting right now! Mr Cunliffe did a credible job of fielding questions about his Trust/s but this was a golden opportunity to bring up the many similar blunders on the part of the Nats. At this stage of the campaign, you need to hammer home every nail you have and keep hammering until September.

    • geoff 17.1
      13 March 2014 at 8:45 pm

      I’d much rather see you do a far better job of telling the rest of New Zealand.

      Can you get me a slot as the anonymous editor for the Herald?

  18. tricledrown 18
    13 March 2014 at 11:54 am

    Labour and Winston Peters suffered the consequences of their actions and lost the 2008 election.
    National should face the same consequences.
    I see some of the right leaning blogsters are pissed off with Collins Guy Adams Williamson .
    Key can,t sack anybody because he only has a 1 vote majority.
    Early election is the only other solution.

  19. captain hook 19
    13 March 2014 at 1:50 pm

    This gang of tories arte just the usual gang of neandethal liteweights.
    They are good at promoting themselvs and bashing up those who cnat fight back but not much good for anything else.
    Shifty cant call and early election because his short contracts on the $NZ dont mature till september 21.

  20. Mjoy 20
    13 March 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Why would the Minister of Justice go on an Official trip to China?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      13 March 2014 at 2:11 pm

      To promote her husband’s business.

    • Tracey 20.2
      13 March 2014 at 3:12 pm

      To see how their system of justice deals with govt naysayers?

    • ScottGN 20.3
      13 March 2014 at 3:14 pm

      And why would the government of China want to pay for much of that visit?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 20.3.1
        13 March 2014 at 3:22 pm

        They’re afraid of her.

        • Anne 20.3.1.1
          13 March 2014 at 5:35 pm

          She’s Boadicea reincarnated. Only she does it with words not a scythe attached to a chariot. Did you see her major put down of Gower the other night and her bitchy comment re Michelle Boag? Bad moves Judith!

          • ScottGN 20.3.1.1.1
            13 March 2014 at 5:57 pm

            Not much sign of Boudicca today though. Nearly lost it heading in to the House. And her answers to Robertson at QT yesterday were pretty bloody pathetic really. What surprises me though is that her darling Whaleoil has tried major diversion yet?

  21. Saarbo 21
    13 March 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Yes, these right wing fuckwits call it “networking”, its just that they cant identify the difference when it crosses the line into “conflict of interest”, the Amy Adams is a classic.

    They can be tricky though, I once had a case where there was a clear conflict of interest so the person in question stood down but all of their mates on the Board simply represented their interests. It can be a tough thing to govern if the person in question lacks integrity. A person of real integrity would just stay well clear of this situation…but not this National Party, they are the new breed of unashamed greedy buggers…they wont let anything get in the road of their personal wealth…disgusting.

  22. Puckish Rogue 22
    13 March 2014 at 4:07 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9823387/Key-Nothing-untoward-in-citizenship-waiver

    “Former Labour associate immigration minister Damien O’Connor approved residency for wealthy Chinese businessman Donghua Liu against officials’ advice.”

    Oops a daisy

    • Zorr 22.1
      13 March 2014 at 4:37 pm

      Do you even read half the bs you post?

      The issue is not actually around O’Connor approving (as is stated in the article, it’s a standard thing) but the money and influence that were involved pre- and post- approval to and by the National party.

    • ScottGN 22.2
      13 March 2014 at 5:46 pm

      Oops a daisy! Who left that $22,000 just lying there?

    • Tracey 22.3
      14 March 2014 at 9:26 am

      and can you point to your posts decrying it and calling for his resignation or the ones where you wrote, nothing to see here?

  23. finbar. 23
    13 March 2014 at 4:09 pm

    The nigger in the wood shed is Jones,running spouting like some elitist 30!s swell,educated to the point of stupidity and its vanity,to the point of obnoxious arrogance.Is his self drive leading to a fall.

    • MaxFletcher 23.1
      13 March 2014 at 4:18 pm

      Woodpile, not woodshed.

      At any rate – not a very pleasant turn of phrase

      • finbar. 23.1.1
        13 March 2014 at 11:48 pm

        A.B.C.a new named new school.Sucker old new line,that has given us little of our value aside from their A.B.C. ego rule.Time to get on the bus,our age may be progressing,our social care has its youth care in our Party!s Birth,time for youth!s crack onto to that,to care and carry our old line of solidarity,or wallow in the only bench of politicians losers misery the other benches.Time for young and old to get on board the Cunliffe bus,hard line..

    • marty mars 23.2
      13 March 2014 at 6:56 pm

      I think the alarms gone off and it’s time to change your nappies finsick-ill. Run along laddie there’s a good wee boy.

  24. Macro 24
    13 March 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Collins is a serial offender. Were she to be judged according to the 3 strikes rule she would be out for good. This is not the first time she has used her position of power to influence outcomes for friends and family.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6Pi1w-D4ydLV2Y3bjdkVllrblU/edit?pli=1
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/the-blue-appointment.html
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/still-questions-about-devoy-appointment.html
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/corrupting-judicial-system.html
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/collins-offered-mapp-job.html
    Of course our erstwhile PM is always “relaxed” about all this – after all that’s what he’s there for.. To look after his mates – and he himself is as amoral as she.

  25. whatever next? 25
    13 March 2014 at 5:58 pm

    Akshully, if Judith Collins paused for a minute, and stopped “believing her own press”, she would realise that without the “plebs” who elect her, she would have no power, and possible alot less friends in high places. Very funny listening to Key’s analogy on how we need give “children” a second chance, a chance of redemption etc, except…..we don’t pay her to act like a child, we pay her to show the utmost integrity. I don’t think my employers would be so “fatherly” were I to do the exact opposite of what I am payed for, oh to live on the Planet of Key

  26. rhinocrates 26
    13 March 2014 at 6:34 pm

    For these people, rules are not to be followed in spirit, but their letter is to be selectively interpreted as excuses to justify corruption. That is why they make them.

  27. redfred 27
    13 March 2014 at 6:37 pm

    The farcical nature of this calls for an appropriate response!

    Old John Key had a Country
    Chur chur chur churrrrr
    And in that country he had a
    Judith “dodgy dinner” Collins chur chur chur
    with a sell some milk powder here sell some milk powder there
    Chur chur chur chuuur

    Old John Key had a Country
    Chur chur chur churrrrr
    And in that country he has a
    Amy “dirty dairy” Adams chur chur chur
    With an override a local democracy here, override a local democracy there
    Chur chur chur

    Old John Key has a Country
    Chur chur chur churrrrr
    And in that country he had a
    Nathan “Selling Citzenship” Guy
    With a sell a citizenship there, sell a citizenship here
    Chur chur chur

    Old John Key had a Country
    Chur chur chur churrrrr
    And in that country he had a
    Steven” Can’t Fix a Thing” Joyce
    With a nova pay here, a nova pay there
    Chur chur chur
    Old John Key screwed a country chur chur chur churrrrrrrrrr

    Sadly the verses are friggin endless,

    • Chooky 27.1
      13 March 2014 at 7:37 pm

      +100 .redfred ..bloody good song!…maybe a Lefty folk group can sing it before electioneering dos/debates

      …music is always a great way to educate and garner public support for issues and political parties

  28. Foreign waka 28
    13 March 2014 at 6:47 pm

    The government needs to change if for one reason only: to open the books and learn the truth about the situation at hand. Even implied corruption is something that is accredited to undemocratic states. Where does it leave NZ?

    • Chooky 28.1
      13 March 2014 at 7:41 pm

      @ up a corrupt dirty undemocratic river ?

      …but not without a paddle…….Cunliffe and the Greens and Winnie will be paddling furiously to open the books

  29. georgecom 29
    13 March 2014 at 8:37 pm

    Isn’t it interesting how Collins is reacting to the fiasco largely (totally?)of her own making.

    She has apparently been close to tears and has been upset with the likes of Shane Jones and the questions they have asked.

    This is the same woman who described Meteria Turei, as being a fragile little petal when Turei took exception to some of Collins statements.

    I have heard Bryce Edwards describes Collin’s arrogance as landing her in this situation. As well as arrogance, maybe some lack of insight and inability to be reflective as well?

    I guess a number of people may argue, if you give it Judith, expect to receive it, and understand that is how these things operate.

    • dv 29.1
      13 March 2014 at 9:50 pm

      Why is she so upset about what Shane Jones has said – sounds really odd.
      So what if she stayed there.
      Me thinks she protests too much.

      ‘She said rumours mentioned today by Jones on RadioLive, that she was living at Shi’s mansion were “defamatory”.

      Collins had earlier told Fairfax she and her husband had never stayed at the former Hotchin mansion. Suggestions they had stayed there while their own house was being renovated were wrong.

      Jones’ comments were “hurtful”, she said today, but she would not elaborate on what the comments might have meant.

      “I’m really disgusted that Shane would do that,” Collins said.

      “It’s actually really hurtful. I’ve been to the home that Mr Shi has bought on many occasions because he is a close personal friend and he’s away a lot.”

      • the pigman 29.1.1
        14 March 2014 at 1:12 am

        Sorry if this is the elephant in the room, but the inference I’m drawing (and the implication that I believe she thought Shane Jones was making) is that she’s been having it off with Shi.

        Is that bleeding obvious or is my mind just in the gutter?

        • Anne 29.1.1.1
          14 March 2014 at 3:30 am

          …the inference I’m drawing (and the implication that I believe she thought Shane Jones was making) is that she’s been having it off with Shi.

          That’s the inference she has chosen to take, but when you read what Jones actually said, he didn’t seem to be inferring as much. He merely noted that she (and I think he mentioned her husband in this context) had visited often and it was rumoured had even stayed there.

          Remember John Banks tried to pull that one with a TV3 reporter. He conveniently interpreted a comment to mean he was being accused of ‘having it off’ with Kim Dotcom at Sky City – he’s a married man he said in faked shock/horror.

          • North 29.1.1.1.1
            14 March 2014 at 5:47 am

            Ha ha ha………..note that Botox didn’t protest that HE was a married man.

        • Tracey 29.1.1.2
          14 March 2014 at 9:31 am

          Wow, I didn’t, I just thought she was staying there sometimes because it’s a bloody mansion with great views and maybe a housemaid and gardner????

      • floyd 29.1.2
        14 March 2014 at 9:52 am

        What does she mean by ‘he’s a close personal friend and he’s away a lot?’

  30. logie97 30
    13 March 2014 at 9:37 pm

    … and just in case she thinks it’s getting a bit personal, Collins and Lockjaw, between them did a pretty good character assassination of David Benson-Pope. Collins needs to harden up. Sensitive wee sausage aint she…

    • georgecom 30.1
      13 March 2014 at 10:05 pm

      Yes, that’s it, sensitive wee sausage. I would’ve thought that by now Collins would’ve figured out the give and take. She is taking it right now and is clearly upset. She has given heaps as well. Surely she would have developed some personal insight or reflection? I am just wondering whether this is another aspect of that arrogance some people have spoken of. Does that blind reflection and insight?

  31. gnomic 31
    13 March 2014 at 10:16 pm

    The smirking weasel can’t sack Crusher. She won’t let him. And I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes if he tried. That’s my humble opinion.

  32. Lucy 32
    14 March 2014 at 8:17 am

    The real question to me about this whole Collins affair is : Did Judith Collins husband travel on the perk? That alone is a sackable offence for using the perk for business related activities. She claimed earlier he paid his own way, but was that paying his way 25% of the airfare?

    • Tracey 32.1
      14 March 2014 at 9:32 am

      Another real question is who paid for the personal dinner and when and how did a border official come to be there too, or is he also a personal friend (genuine question, dont know the answer)

  33. greywarbler 33
    14 March 2014 at 9:26 am

    There’s a good cartoon by Evans in the Press today. Collins saying sorry, sorry…………NOT.

    I can’t find link to it but did find Bryce Edwards who has a good one by Tom Scott. Maybe he’ll add Evans one from today for everybody’s delectation.
    https://twitter.com/bryce_edwards

    While I was looking to see if there was a link I saw this so pass on a warning about FRUIT here maybe carrying Hepatitis – a worker had it. Washing it does not protect you, though cooking does.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/cropping/9827683/Apples-peaches-recalled-in-Hepatitis-A-scare

    • Ross 33.1
      14 March 2014 at 9:48 am

      “I’m also a human being…I think that gets lost sometimes” ~ Judith Collins

      http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/i-m-also-human-being-says-under-fire-judith-collins-video-5864815

      Meanwhile in the same interview Collins says Bryce Edwards was “nasty” in saying that she was arrogant and lacked contrition. Seems he hit the nail on the head. She obviously can’t handle constructive criticism. 🙂

      • whatever next? 33.1.1
        14 March 2014 at 10:28 am

        “I’m also a human being…I think that gets lost sometimes” ~ Judith Collins

        It is you that “lost ” it when you were seduced by the power that was given to you….maybe spiteful, superior tone towards people that aren’t in your gang a sign of being “human”, albeit a bit tribal.

      • greywarbler 33.1.2
        14 March 2014 at 2:24 pm

        I think Collins gets ‘constructive criticism’ mixed up with rude comments like ‘shit a brick’, thinking ‘physical construction’ instead of realising the meaning of confession, misconduct, guiltiness and delinquency. Perhaps find it in the Collins dictionary!

        She would probably profit from some time off from throwing words around in government and study for a while. Starting with convoluted concepts like –

        deconstruction :
        a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.

    • greywarbler 33.2
      14 March 2014 at 2:30 pm

      Bryce Edwards is going to do a summary or something on the big C later according to twitter and if anyone has anything of fact and detail to write here about the thinking and doing of this person, let them speak now. Though they can say their piece later as well, but now would be particularly well-timed.

  34. risildowgtn 34
    14 March 2014 at 10:03 am

    Ooohh the tories be so proud of this :::

    The businessman granted citizenship against official advice after a Government minister lobbied on his behalf is facing domestic violence charges.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11219251

    • Murray Olsen 34.1
      14 March 2014 at 5:54 pm

      I have seen Germans kicked out after more than 10 years here because they were caught puffing on a joint. I suspect they hadn’t donated to NAct though. Maybe the businessman should ask the Prez of the Mighty National Mob how to get name suppression?

Links to post