Key breaks flip-flop world record

68 comments on “Key breaks flip-flop world record ”

• Comments are now closed

1. toad 1

   9 September 2008 at 2:40 pm

   …he would rather give the money to non-government organisations delivering front-line services.

   Hmmm. Like Mission Australia.

   He seems to like the Aussies – Aussie banks, Aussie social service providers…
2. Dom 2

   9 September 2008 at 2:49 pm

   Will Dunne accept any major changes to the FC? His vote is likely to require it remains pretty much as is, I suspect.

   And yes Toad, Mission Australia would be a major beneficiary of the FC losing funding…

   Also, I wonder how the Maori Party would feel about Mission Oz coming over here…anyone know?
3. toad 3

   9 September 2008 at 3:02 pm

   Well, the Green Party certainly wouldn’t be keen.
4. Dom 4

   9 September 2008 at 3:33 pm

   Thanks Toad, useful link. Didn’t know Collins had said she wouldn’t use MA here. Of course, knowing National an MP saying that is likely to be contradicted by Key or English later on so it’s effectively meaningless.
5. Lampie 5

   9 September 2008 at 3:44 pm

   ho hum

   Lampie
   September 9, 2008 at 8:23 am
   Correct me if I’m wrong. National now supporting “anti-smacking’ bill unless evidence suggests otherwise. I thought they were against it? Any case, another “me too’ and “cover my ass’ no leadership example from John Key.

   Mr Key, for God sake, actually show what you stand for, grow some balls!!
6. Robinsod 6

   9 September 2008 at 3:51 pm

   I don’t want to post off-topic and link-whore but Farrar is on bloody Radio New Zealand again this arvo and I want to get a campaign going to get Clint Smith up as a commentator. I’m sick of the only lefties in the MSM being idiots like Trotter…

   http://robinsod.wordpress.com/?p=100

   Anyone else who wants to see some fairness and balance please contact me through my blog.

   /off-topic linkwhoring
7. Bill 7

   9 September 2008 at 3:56 pm

   Parents Inc, not MA.

   Key said he liked the work of Parents Inc, run by evangelical Christian Ian Grant.

   “The current Government won’t touch them because they’ve got a Christian-based perspective,” Key said.

   “I personally think they happen to deliver fantastic results, and I’m going to make sure they get some money to run their programmes far and wide.”

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4685704a6160.html
8. Anita 8

   9 September 2008 at 4:09 pm

   Bill,

   As was established in another thread Parents Inc does, in fact, receive government funding.
9. Tara 9

   9 September 2008 at 4:34 pm

   I’m starting to feel sorry for John Key as his own party deserts him to his delusions of grandeur.

   Thats dangerous. He might get the sympathy vote.
10. Bill 10

    9 September 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Anita
    yeah I know. Was me pointed that out on the other thread.

    The reason for putting in the quote I did here with the link was ’cause Dom and Toad were speculating on MA being direct beneficiaries of a Nat Government.

    I was merely signposting the probability it would be Parents Inc and not MA who would get tha dosh/ contracts/whatever.
11. Johnty Rhodes 11

    9 September 2008 at 4:41 pm

    See Hurricane Owen has dropped Labour in the shit. Must be a senior moment by OG.
    How are Mike W and H1 going to spin this?
12. barnsleybill 12

    9 September 2008 at 4:42 pm

    I think his biggest demographic will be those who are tired of liars.
    Cullen’s attempts to claim that it was not Winston who answered his own phone this afternoon were a new low.
13. Daveski 13

    9 September 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Anyone else who wants to see some fairness and balance please contact me through my blog.

    Well said ‘Sod.

    After all, the Standard is the only forum in NZ that realises John Key’s flip flops is the most important political story today.

    As for unfair and balance, everyone in the free world (ok, everyone at the Standard) knows that the Winston story is a non-issue compared to secret agendas, flip flops, policies, lack of policies or any other attempt to take the focus away from the real issues.
14. Tane 14

    9 September 2008 at 4:47 pm

    This blog has covered Winston plenty, and frankly I’m bored of it. In fact, apart from the press gallery and Farrar’s hangers-on, I think everyone else is too.
15. barnsleybill 15

    9 September 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Tane you are channeling again.
    move along, nothing to see here.
16. Anita 16

    9 September 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Tane,

    I continue to follow it with a kind of horrified fascination. If Peters doesn’t miraculously get out of this squeaky clean it’ll be like the death of Father Christmas. Aren’t you at least a little curious about how he’ll magic his way out of this one?
17. Daveski 17

    9 September 2008 at 4:54 pm

    To be honest, Tane, I think we all are. However, my point which I think we disagree on is its relative importance.

    Frankly, I’m bored also with the side shows of flip flops and leaks.

    Can someone PLEASE ask Helen to set the election date so we can end the phony war?
18. Anita 18

    9 September 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Daveski,

    The date is 8 November, it always was.

    How does that change anything?
19. Daveski 19

    9 September 2008 at 4:58 pm

    LOL at my own sanctimonious post!

    I just checked to see what the latest news was on the Big Story … and found that the Big Story is now “Ritchie Returns”. (Nothing to do with Happy Days either but the All Blacks)

    Perhaps Stuff is over it too?
20. Johnty Rhodes 20

    9 September 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Daveski, How can H1 run a campaign with bars in front of her?

    [Tane: I’ve been following your comments and they’re classic troll material – completely off-topic, inflammatory and with no intention of engaging others in discussion. If you carry on like this I will ban you. This is your final warning.]
21. Daveski 21

    9 September 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Anita

    Has it been announced? If so I’ve missed it.

    Once it is official, then we can expect both Labour and National to front up with genuine policy and not play this extended game of blink.

    Tane is of course right (although I would expect he would see the attacks on Key as being somehow different). The point is that we need to move on to the formal part of the election process to force the games to stop.
22. Tane 22

    9 September 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Anita, na, I figure he’s likely out after the election anyway, so it doesn’t really matter. The last confidence vote has passed, the numbers on the ETS are sweet – that’s all I’m really interested in. The rest of it I just find a bore.

    Daveski, yeah, the news media has a funny idea of what’s newsworthy sometimes. I can see why the press gallery find this so fascinating, from their own perspective, but I think by putting so much focus on Peters at the expense of other issues this close to an election campaign they’re doing the public a disservice.
23. Tane 23

    9 September 2008 at 5:03 pm

    The point is that we need to move on to the formal part of the election process to force the games to stop.

    Bro I’d like that to be the case but somehow I think the games are here to stay, formal election campaign or not.
24. Billy 24

    9 September 2008 at 5:13 pm

    but I think by putting so much focus on Peters at the expense of other issues this close to an election campaign they’re doing the public a disservice.

    But I understood that the influence of big money in the electoral process was something close to the Labour Party’s heart. So evil was it that we needed to ram through electoral reform. Did I get that wrong?
25. Anita 25

    9 September 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Daveski,

    But we all know it will be the 8th of November. So why not behave as if we know that?

    Tane, There’s a piece of me that agrees with you about Peters, but another part admires his Houdini-like qualities, his gamesmanship and his sense of humour. I’ve always secretly believed that one could find documentary proof that he eats babies and he’d blame them media, feign anger, and three months later NZF would be up in the polls and he’d be giving out tax breaks to his racing buddies, or raising the minimum wage or persecuting Muslims. Maybe it’s my age but he seems eternal somehow, and watching him grow old and lose his edge is just plain sad.
26. Tane 26

    9 September 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Billy, the Peters saga only confirms my views on electoral finance. But somehow I don’t think we’ll see the right-wing press calling for a strengthening of the anonymous donor provisions of the ERA.

    Anita, yeah, there’s a bit of that. But any lingering sympathy I had for him died yesterday when I received a NZ First press release entiled “Rapist Refugee: Out!”
27. Billy 27

    9 September 2008 at 5:25 pm

    So Tane,

    If it were the National Party in the position Winston’s in, you’d be shrugging your shoulders and asking for more debate on policy? Given that last year we had four posts a day on the music at the last National Party conference, somehow I think I know the answer to that question.

    [Tane: Na, if it was National I’d be interested. They’re a major party with the power to do serious damage. I think Winston’s kind of irrelevant.]
28. randal 28

    9 September 2008 at 5:28 pm

    sod I agree completely…so how about it the standard. put one of the jimmy olsens on the case, do some research and lets get some decent commentators on the airwaves instead of the endless parade of pseudo gentrified rover 90 wannabees
29. Darren Rickard 29

    9 September 2008 at 5:43 pm

    I have been away from The Standard for a week and I see you are still ignoring the main political news.

    Even given that The Labour Party is now at the centre of it.

    Mike Williams knew about the Glenn donation to Peters because it was put past him for approval before it was made.

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/09/mike-williams-knew-of-glenn-donation-in.html

    It begs the question whether he told Helen Clark back in 2005.

    It isn’t in Clark’s style for her not to know.

    Id like to see the Standard take on this latest revelation.

    Cheers, Darren

    [Tane: Darren, someone may as it suits them. I’ve explained already that I’m bored sick of it, so it won’t be me. We’re an opinion site, not a news service.]
30. Inventory2 30

    9 September 2008 at 5:43 pm

    Tane – don’t count your chickens on the ETS yet, The Greens may yet realise that by standing firm on a point of principle, they could become the opposition in November. Labour and NZ First are now joined at the hip in this cesspit, and left is there for the taking if the Greens play their cards right.
31. Wondering 31

    9 September 2008 at 5:44 pm

    [Tane: I’ve been following your comments and they’re classic troll material – completely off-topic, inflammatory and with no intention of engaging others in discussion. If you carry on like this I will ban you. This is your final warning.]

    So what is considered trolling here? Daring to take a dig at your beloved Labour Party?

    [Tane: Don’t be absurd, people dig at Labour all the time on this site, myself included. I’m neither a member nor a voter. What I object to is a pattern of disruptive behaviour as outlined above. We’re not going to have this place turn into a cesspit.]
32. Inventory2 32

    9 September 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Darren – Clark’s “no surprises” policy makes a maockery of any suggestionsthat she wasn’t told by Williams, who she reminded us a while back “is one of my oldest friends”.
33. higherstandard 33

    9 September 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Tane

    “…….. the Peters saga only confirms my views on electoral finance. But somehow I don’t think we’ll see the right-wing press calling for a strengthening of the anonymous donor provisions of the ERA”

    Why would anyone donate “non-anonymously” after Owne Glenn has been over the course of a year maligned by the political right, effectively called a liar by Winston Peters, maligned and ridiculed by Labour and had the PM not take him at his word.

    The man has been treated appallingly badly and I see he has made another very generous donation today this time to the Millennium Institute on the Northshore. If parliament had any semblance of dignity left it would offer apologies from the House to Glenn over this fiasco and allow him to give a free kick to the pants of both Winston Peters and several others.

    [Tane: So long as people donate transparently there’s nothing to fear. Glenn chose to make an anonymous donation. But as I say, this helps motivate the case for public funding of political parties. It’s time to get money out of politics.]
34. Ben R 34

    9 September 2008 at 6:00 pm

    “But any lingering sympathy I had for him died yesterday when I received a NZ First press release entiled “Rapist Refugee: Out!’

    Why did that destroy your lingering sympathy? That is fairly consistent with NZF’s general position? And they have a point, deporting rapists might even be a good idea.

    [Tane: It’s the racist dogwhistle I object to.]
35. Billy 35

    9 September 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Actually, Wondering, it is quite possible to bag the Labour Party here and not be accused of trolling. I have done it not less than four times a day for 10 months and have not been accused of it once. And I’m not even clever.
36. Phil 36

    9 September 2008 at 6:03 pm

    “But we all know it will be the 8th of November”

    Anita, I really don’t think the 8th is a smart date for Labour – having the election two days after the announcement of what will, in all probability, be a rather nasty unemployment rate announcement just seems really dumb. September quarter is traditionally ‘bad’ because of the seasonal impact.

    A lot of people have forgotten that the All Black game on the 1st is in Hong Kong, and will probably be televised around midnight.
37. r0b 37

    9 September 2008 at 6:12 pm

    I have done it not less than four times a day for 10 months and have not been accused of it once.

    It’s all in the delivery.

    And I’m not even clever.

    Clever enough to be an artist with the possessive apostrophe (recent minor boo boos not withstanding).

    On Glenn HS said “maligned and ridiculed by Labour”. I actually missed that in all the excitement (not) – does someone have the actual quotes? Glenn seems to me a very generous person, and I wouldn’t like to think of him being maligned and ridiculed by anyone. I do see, however, why those on the Right would like to create a big enough stink to drive Glenn away from the idea of political donations.
38. Robinsod 38

    9 September 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Oh you are too clever Billy – just not as clever as me…
39. Tim Ellis 39

    9 September 2008 at 6:25 pm

    r0b and Billy I agree that people can engage in constructive debate, taking an opposite view here. I’ve done it on numerous occasions as well. I think the moderation that goes on here is quite robust and justified. I get annoyed with trolls from both sides who wander in and add nothing to the debate except abuse and I applaud the Standard’s moderators for dealing with it.

    Tane, you might be bored with the Peters saga, and I agree that many New Zealanders probably are. But like it or not, it’s still the biggest game in town. Just because some of us got bored with the Olympics coverage doesn’t mean the media stopped reporting it.

    I think the real point is that irrespective of how boring you might find it, there are many more hits against the Labour Party that have emerged from it this week. The big game in town hasn’t been Trevor releasing National Party leaked policy (although he’s made a good fist of trying to distract the media from it, unsuccessfully). The Glenn evidence at the Privileges Committee was really quite stunning. I think you’re dreaming if you think there isn’t going to be any major political fallout from what took place this afternoon.

    R0b, I haven’t seen any direct quotes about Owen Glenn being ridiculed and maligned, except from comments Winston Peters, Dail Jones, and Michael Cullen have made in the House suggesting Glenn was “confused”. There are also claims from John Key today that he received a text message from a senior Gallery journalist, stating that a senior Cabinet Minister had claimed that Owen Glenn had received electro-shock therapy, and that his brain surgery earlier in the year had affected his judgement. You might call that hearsay, or second-hand hearsay at best, and you’d be justified in saying that. But it has obviously got back to Glenn, and irritated him no end. If it’s true that Mallard said that, it’s a pretty awful thing to say about your biggest financial donor, and it’s not surprising that he would feel ridiculed and maligned.

    [Tane: There may be fallout, it’s just I don’t find it very interesting. Maybe other Standardistas will.]
40. r0b 40

    9 September 2008 at 6:37 pm

    In haste and in transit, but if that is all there is to go on then shame on you HS for spreading FUD. Later…
41. higherstandard 41

    9 September 2008 at 6:50 pm

    r0b

    “I am aware that members of parliament who are members of this committee have questioned the authenticity of the letters that I have written. I am also aware that it has been said that I am ‘confused’ and ‘a liar’.

    “These remarks are damaging to my reputation. These comments are wrong, as the documents I have produced show,” Mr Glenn said.

    and from the Herald

    Mr Glenn earlier today indicated he was offended by the way he had been treated by Mr Peters and Prime Minister Helen Clark, who he told of the donation in February. Helen Clark did not reveal she was told until recently, instead saying she took Mr Peters at his word that he had not been given a donation.

    Asked if he was offended, Mr Glenn said “well, wouldn’t you be?”
42. barnsleybill 42

    9 September 2008 at 7:07 pm

    The Glenn interview on campbell live was the most explosive interview I have ever seen.
    Clark, Williams and peter’s will go down as people completely without honour over this.
43. randal 43

    9 September 2008 at 7:20 pm

    eshilly (sic) this is the best show on tv at the moment. a whole lot of dancing fleas on a hot plate arguing over a few grand here and there, getting exposure on teeev and resolving nothing. the kayonedoubleyewone way! never fails.
44. jafapete 44

    9 September 2008 at 8:29 pm

    BarnsleyBill: “The Glenn interview on Campbell Live was the most explosive interview I have ever seen.”

    Well, let’s face it, anything that can be construed in some way as detrimental to Labour is going to get you wetting your pants, BB. I’ve just now checked the Herald, Stuff, TVNZ, RadioNZ and TV3 — just in case there was something explosive in the interview — and… nothing. Not a mention.

    Oh, and Darren, having someone run something past you doesn’t put you at the centre of anything. At that point Williams would have known that Glenn was seriously considering donating to Peters. Maybe even that he intended to. Send the lynch mob home, please someone, before they hurt themselves.

    If you want a more balanced account, BB, you know where to find it: http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/peters-gone-on-the-evidence/
45. vto 45

    9 September 2008 at 8:37 pm

    jafapete, really.

    the reaction to this by the left is amusing to say the least
46. barnsleybill 46

    9 September 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Hi JP, I shall look shortly, however perhaps this link might be more usefull.
    Reader advisory. Contains hatemongering.
    http://barnsleybill.blogspot.com/2008/09/dedicated-to-ogglen-of-monaco.html
    sorry for the link whoring guys, however it is a fantastic interview. Even more so when you consider it is the ponsonby communist conducting the interview
47. Pascal's bookie 47

    9 September 2008 at 8:52 pm

    “There are also claims from John Key today that he received a text message from a senior Gallery journalist, stating that a senior Cabinet Minister had claimed that Owen Glenn had received electro-shock therapy, and that his brain surgery earlier in the year had affected his judgement. You might call that hearsay, or second-hand hearsay at best, and you’d be justified in saying that. But it has obviously got back to Glenn, and irritated him no end. If it’s true that Mallard said that, it’s a pretty awful thing to say about your biggest financial donor, and it’s not surprising that he would feel ridiculed and maligned.”

    That’s pretty shocking Tim. If true I want to know who said it. That Rovian smear artist wishart shit pisses me off. Are key’s comments online anywhere? Hooten is making similar, but even more disgusting, claims. Though he flies off the handle as per his style.

    The whole scenario is pretty fishy though, and no-one comes out of it with any credit. For all we know Key is making it all up, which would be just as disgusting I’m sure you’ll agree. And a textbook Rove ratf*ck operation. C/T likes them some Rove. Just sayin.

    If he’s not making it up he should tell us who said it, who his journo source is and so on. It’s a pretty serious allegation to just put out there, and I’m wondering if Key provided any evidence that it took place. I suspect he might be inventing things after the fact. (To use a phrase I heard recently, and responded to, to no avail. sigh)
48. Tim Ellis 48

    9 September 2008 at 9:15 pm

    PB, John Key did mention a name in the House today, if my recall is correct. I cannot remember specifically which name he used, but it was either Michael Cullen or Trevor Mallard. That will be revealed obviously when the questions for oral answer are published.

    Guyon Espiner wrote in his blog this morning: “Labour interests have been privately discrediting Owen Glenn, painting him as befuddled, confused and unreliable.” I would link it, but it will get caught as spam.

    The SST reported on Sunday: “It can hardly have helped when Labour’s deputy, Michael Cullen, started describing Glenn as “confused’, and when rumours began to circulate in political circles that perhaps Glenn’s memory wasn’t quite what it was since his surgery last year to treat a life-threatening subdural haematoma (bleeding on the brain), something Glenn had openly discussed with the Herald in February.”

    There have been rumours circulating for weeks that Labour ministers have been putting around that Glenn is a drunk, confused, losing his memory. In Parliament the other day he was reported as being “well into his 70s”. The clear inference from the line of questioning from Labour MPs at the Privileges Committee–that Glenn didn’t know who he was talking to on the phone–confirm the line that they’ve been pushing, that Glenn is gaga.

    Rumours I have heard, and again I agree that they’re just hearsay, are that Labour ministers were putting around the news that Glenn was drunk when he was at Karaka, and confused Howard Morrison with Winston Peters. Utterly preposterous, if you read the evidence Glenn presented to the Privileges Committee: Morrison was clearly an old friend of Glenn’s. You have to be very, very, very drunk to confuse somebody you know very well, with somebody else.

    I would like to see some documentary evidence of this smearing of Owen Glenn as well. I would like to see affidavits from reporters who were allegedly told this, with the ministers named. If it’s true, it is an utterly vile and contemptuous way to speak of your largest donor.
49. Pascal's bookie 49

    9 September 2008 at 9:31 pm

    “I would like to see some documentary evidence of this smearing of Owen Glenn as well.”

    Indeed. Without evidence it’s just another smear of it’s own. So much crap gets peddled under the guise of rumour. Put up or shut up I reckon.
50. Anita 50

    9 September 2008 at 9:44 pm

    Tim Ellis,

    1) I put in links all the time and they don’t get trapped as spam. Perhaps there’s a threshold for how many you could try one and see how it goes?

    2) I’ve only heard rumours about Glenn from the right (told as stories about the left smearing Glenn).
51. r0b 51

    9 September 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Plenty of rumour HS, but then rumours are a dime a dozen. No actual confirmed quote however, beyond a mention of possibly “confused”. It’s a long way from suggesting that someone may be “confused” to “maligned and ridiculed”, hence you are spreading FUD.

    Looks to me like a Crosby Textor play to drive a wedge between Labour and its biggest donor. Spread rumours that Labour MPs are badmouthing him privately (which, let’s face it, would be a daft thing for them to do). Glenn takes offence, no more donations to Labour. Very cynical, very smooth.
52. Tim Ellis 52

    9 September 2008 at 10:19 pm

    rob, that argument would only be valid if it weren’t the journalists saying they had heard the rumours from Labour MPs. Guyon Espiner and the Sunday Star Times have already confirmed it.
53. Anita 53

    9 September 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Tim Ellis,

    Refs?

    Sorry to be a pain, but I know that Hooten wrote it in the SST, I’m not sure whether an actual journalist did.
54. r0b 54

    9 September 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Well Tim I’d be fascinated to know if these journos actually heard Labour MPs saying such things themselves, or are repeating what they have been told by Nat MPs.

    Maybe Labour MPs have been running off at the mouth, though it would seem like a chronically stupid thing for them to do, and quite uncharacteristic of such a well disciplined team. Whereas National have abundant motive to spread these rumours, to try and piss Glenn off so that he washes his hands of donating to NZ politics.

    But I do know that all that can be factually attributed so far is one mention of possibly “confused’. It’s a long way from suggesting that someone may be “confused’ to “maligned and ridiculed’.
55. Tim Ellis 55

    9 September 2008 at 11:02 pm

    Anita, I ignored the Hooton quote in the SST. The SST quote is at http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4683825a6619.html .

    Rob, Guyon Espiner is pretty clear that it is Labour insiders who are peddling the Owen Glenn is confused line. He says that Labour people are privately spreading it around. I very much doubt he has reason to rely simply on National MPs saying that Labour MPs are privately saying it. These are journalists. They don’t take things that politicians say about politicians at face value. A credible journalist simply wouldn’t rehash that nonsense without hearing it themselves. It’s a nice idea that the National is peddling this “Labour MPs are privately saying this…” stuff around, but it simply doesn’t wash.

    John Key stood up in the House today and said he’d had a text message from a journalist who had heard it. You might not take John Key’s words in the House very seriously, but if what he said was untrue, don’t you think a journalist would have pinged him for it already?

    DPF has said on his blog several times that he has heard this as well, that press gallery journalists have told him that Cullen and Mallard have been smearing Glenn, by referring to him as “well into his 70s”, “confused”, suggesting he’d been suffering memory loss since his brain surgery at the beginning of the year, and again we saw at the privileges committee today an attempt from Fairbrother and Cullen to suggest that Owen wouldn’t know the difference between Wayne Peters, or Winston Peters, on the other end of a cellphone.

    I understand that you will take Farrar’s information with a grain of salt. Fair enough. But you were quite happy, the other day, in presenting your argument that John Key is slippery, by providing 90% of your evidence through links back to articles published at the Standard, so fair’s fair.
56. Paul Robeson 56

    9 September 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Glenn is loving the attention. He wanted to be honororororary consul so he could get a bit of oddball glory in Monaco. Now here he comes a-rolling into town, the biggest story.

    Showboating, that’s what I call it, and I would know.
57. r0b 57

    9 September 2008 at 11:43 pm

    The SST quote is at

    What quote? Seriously – what in that article is the proof of these rumours? The article describes the relationship as “sceptic”, but doesn’t provide any proof of this opinion. It repeats Cullen’s “confused” comment, but that’s hardly a vile personal attack (and as the article notes itself: “In fairness to Cullen, some of Glenn’s statements about the timing and motivation of his donations to Labour have been demonstrably incorrect”). So where’s the evidence Tim?

    Guyon Espiner is pretty clear that it is Labour insiders who are peddling the Owen Glenn is confused line

    Source please? And if it was true, is “confused” – which Glenn apparently has been on occasion – the same as “maligned and ridiculed’?

    DPF has said on his blog several times that he has heard this as well

    Has he indeed. Heh. Pardon me I do often link to facts cited on The Standard. Facts don’t become untrue just because they appear here. But the rumours spread by DPF I will take with more than just a grain of salt.

    So I’m no further ahead. There are rumours and rumours of rumours, but still no verified quote from a Labour MP maligning and ridiculing Glenn. Maybe they have been doing such a thing, but I see no motive for it. I do see a motive for Nats such as yourself to push this line though.
58. Dean 58

    10 September 2008 at 12:17 am

    “Whereas National have abundant motive to spread these rumours, to try and piss Glenn off so that he washes his hands of donating to NZ politics.”

    I think the best exchange from todays hearing was:

    Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen asked whether the person talked like Mr Peters usually did.

    Mr Glenn repeated that he was very sure.

    “I knew it wasn’t you Dr Cullen…you already had your $500,000.”

    Absolutely priceless! I guess it just goes to show that one shouldn’t set about to annoy one’s foreign bag men aye r0b?
59. r0b 59

    10 September 2008 at 12:26 am

    to annoy one’s foreign bag men

    That’s a rather mean spirited way of describing a generous philanthropist don’t you think Dean? Seems to that the ones disparaging Owen Glenn are those on the Right.
60. Dean 60

    10 September 2008 at 12:44 am

    Oh! So if he donates to the left, hes a generous philanthropist, but if he donates to the right, hes a foreign bagman.

    Thanks for clearing that up.
61. r0b 61

    10 September 2008 at 1:00 am

    Glenn is a generous philanthropist not because he donates to the left, but because he donates to many causes.

    As to donors to the right, no one knows if they are philanthropists or not, because their identities are hidden behind secretive shell trusts. Who are National’s donors? The public don’t know – while Glenn cops all this flack from mean spirited nonentities like yourself simply because he makes his donations openly and publicly. The hypocrisy is sickening.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Sure, glad I could help.
62. T-Rex 62

    10 September 2008 at 1:01 am

    Tim:
    “These are journalists. They don’t take things that politicians say about politicians at face value. A credible journalist simply wouldn’t rehash that nonsense without hearing it themselves.”

    Ah hah! AhHHAHAHAHAHA!

    I take it you live in a parallel universe NZ in which journalists aren’t being over worked and thrown out onto the street as fast as Fairfax can print off dismissal notices.

    Dean: “Oh! So if he donates to the left, hes a generous philanthropist, but if he donates to the right, hes a foreign bagman.”

    Fair call.

    I think Glenns response to Cullen was pretty whiny though. Simply plays on the fact that people seem increasingly unable to differentiate between money donated, and money donated in secret by special interest groups. Probably the same people who vote for NZF in the first place.
63. Dean 63

    10 September 2008 at 2:59 am

    “while Glenn cops all this flack from mean spirited nonentities like yourself simply because he makes his donations openly and publicly.”

    How about the open and public donation he made to NZF? You know, the one the deputy PM today suggested was asked for by Winston’s brother?

    Give me a break, r0b. There’s no way of spinning out of this one.
64. T-Rex 64

    10 September 2008 at 3:20 am

    You mean the one that NZF/Peters didn’t disclose right?

    Since when were Glenn or Labour responsible for the actions of NZF w.r.t electoral funding? Oh, that’s right, since never. Glenn is a donor, and Labour championed a law ensuring transparency. So maybe you should direct your ire where it belongs.
65. T-rex 65

    10 September 2008 at 6:45 am

    Hey Tim, look, it’s a journalist not taking something a politician says about another politician at face value and instead doing some analysis and citing sources!

    comments that National says senior ministers including Michael Cullen and Trevor Mallard have been spreading socially and among journalists.

    Oh wait, nevermind, false alarm, they just took it at face value.

    Not to say it’s not true, but you’re deluding yourself if you think the average journalist in this country these days bothers to fact check… well… almost anything.

    I know. I flatted with one. Wrote most of their stories at the 11th hour and didn’t even bother spell checking, let alone fact checking. Plenty of fact embellishing. Facts can be so boring if you let them chain you down. Sad part is I think they were probably not too bad by most standards – editor was much worse.

    I’m sure there are some fantastic reporters in NZ, but I don’t think they’re in the majority. And I’m not even really blaming the ones who are – as I said earlier, accuracy is no longer a priority of the organisations paying them; staff cuts are.
66. Dr Sigmund 66

    10 September 2008 at 6:54 am

    We have a lovely bed ready in the ward for Miss Clark and a toilet for Peter.
67. Robinsod 67

    10 September 2008 at 7:01 am

    Hi Dad.

Links to post

1. Key wears slippery jandals - flip,flop, …splat! « g.blog: posted on 9 September 2008 at 9:14 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS