Reverse ferret bites PM on arse.

Written By: - Date published: 2:46 pm, June 24th, 2014 - 83 comments
Categories: john key, national, same old national - Tags: , , , ,

PM John Key has performed a backflip by now suggesting businessman Donghua Liu should front up with evidence to support the NZ Herald’s unsubstantiated claim that he donated substantial sums to Labour. This is a world away from his previous position that it was up to Labour to prove the negative; to show that no donation was made.

In the world of the UK tabloids, such a strategic move is known as a reverse ferret. The phrase apparently originated with Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, who used to talk about the paper ‘sticking a ferret up the trousers’ of politicians and other targets. If the public didn’t like the story, or it proved to be complete bollocks, MacKenzie would order a ‘reverse ferret’ and the next edition of the paper would take the opposite line, without acknowleging it had ever thought differently.

Key has decided to reverse ferret on the Donghua Liu story because of two factors. One, it’s increasingly looking like it’s simply not true and the Herald has been played like a fiddle. And two, the fiddle player is Cameron Slater, the PM’s bestie from way back.

Key is suddenly finding a desperate need to distance himself from the story. Listen to how testy he gets with Radio NZ (second item, from 45 seconds in). The PM’s transparent, alright.

This is not a man in control of the narrative anymore and the story is becoming what did the PM know, when did he know it and who told him?

Even Tory cheerleader the Herald and Fairfax’s Dom Post are both starting to ask the right questions.

Ferrets have teeth, John, and they don’t much care who they bite.

Te Reo Putake

83 comments on “Reverse ferret bites PM on arse. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dan1 1
    24 June 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Sue them all: Key, National Party, NZ Herald, Whaleoil.
    It might even pay for Labour’s election campaign. The 150,000 may not have been dollars?? Yuan perhaps!!!
    I feel a new film coming on, starring Jonkey in “Lost in Translation”!

  2. tsmithfield 2
    24 June 2014 at 3:18 pm

    It looks like other organisations mentioned in Liu’s statement are finding the donations mentioned in the statement without too much problem. Hmmm. The rowing club had links to Rick Barker as well, according to the article.

    I don’t know if it would be wise to keep demanding the release of donation details. This could end up being a death by 1000 cuts for Labour.

    • Zorr 2.1
      24 June 2014 at 3:24 pm

      Just because he has said one or two things that are accurate does not make everything he says truthful.

      You are merely continuing to prove the fact that it’s impossible to prove the negative (and is in fact what conspiracy theorists rely on). If Key/Liu want to claim that there was a donation to Labour, then the burden of proof is on them.

    • Wonderpup 2.2
      24 June 2014 at 3:26 pm

      Or that faint fizzing sound might be you about to be hoisted with your own petard.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.3
      24 June 2014 at 3:49 pm

      Next they could be asking about the $50,000 auction to win John Keys ties, no mention of THAT in Nationals donations in 2007?

    • Clemgeopin 2.4
      24 June 2014 at 4:32 pm

      Hey, If this Liu fellow has REALLY given the $100,000 for a bottle of wine, surely he will have the receipt for it? His lawyer will have proof? His accountant will have his accounts audited for that year? The IRD will have his returns?

      He should put up his proof immediately or apologise and ask for forgiveness if he has lied.
      The same applies to Key and Whale oil who have made this issue and fanning innuendo on Labour and Mr Cunliffe.

      Labour should give then two days to do front up or sue them for millions of dollars all for dirty tricks, lies, slander and for trying to destabilise and damage Labour just before the election.

      • Tazirev 2.4.1
        24 June 2014 at 5:21 pm

        Surely if you paid that much for a signed bottle of wine you would still have the evidence or has it been drunk??

        • Colonial Viper 2.4.1.1
          24 June 2014 at 6:43 pm

          No LEC in the country runs a wine auction and gets $100K for a bottle. If it actually happened, it would still be the talk of the LEC involved and dozens of Labour Party members would recall it in a second. FFS you can still hear stories in some LECs about fundraising for Bill Rowling’s campaign.

    • McFlock 2.5
      24 June 2014 at 4:43 pm

      Proves the point that every organisation would have people who can recall any significant donation.

      $2k? The fact that nobody at the alleged labour fundraiser has come forward to corroborate $15k or even the alleged $100k “donations” speaks volumes about the likelihood of any such donation ever having been made.

    • jaymam 2.6
      24 June 2014 at 8:01 pm

      Your link shows that Liu has a habit of visiting the Hawke’s Bay. Therefore I would say it is very likely that Liu was really confused on June 3rd 2007 at the The Midland’s Hawke’s Bay Charity Wine Auction at the Hawke’s Bay Opera House and paid (he says) some $100,000 for a bottle of wine signed by Helen Clark, thinking it was going to the Labour Party, when in fact all the proceeds of the auction went to the Cranford Hospice.
      http://tizwine.com/index.php/ps_pagename/newsdetail/pi_newsitemid/478

    • Draco T Bastard 2.7
      24 June 2014 at 8:46 pm

      WTF have you been smoking? One donation has been found and even then it had nothing to do with Labour and was only ~$2000.

      If anything, this supports the possibility that all the rest is a beat up as well.

  3. hoom 3
    24 June 2014 at 3:22 pm

    I got the impression Key was concerned about the

    Meanwhile, National Party President Peter Goodfellow once again refused to comment on whether National had received any donations from Liu other than the $22,000 disclosed in 2012.

    If Liu donated 100k to both Labour & Nat but Nat can’t find it either then it makes Nat look just as bad as they are trying to make Labour look.

    • You_Fool 3.1
      24 June 2014 at 3:47 pm

      The whole narrative relies on the fact that having a donation from Liu is a bad thing no matter what the circumstance, but then also relies on the masses forgetting that Liu donated to National much more recently than Labour, and forgetting that National have been much more active in helping him out that Labour ever did.

  4. ianmac 4
    24 June 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Mr Key would not have got his hands dirty so he will have many choices of folk who are ready and willing to do the dirt. Like Whaleoil or Joyce. Wonder if Whale oil would have to reveal his source?

  5. wyndham 5
    24 June 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Shock ! Horror ! Liu gave $2k to a rowing club connected to the daughter of Rick Barker !
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11280804

    They really are scratching – – – – but never mind, it helps get the slippery one off the hook.

    • ianmac 5.1
      24 June 2014 at 4:25 pm

      But note wyndham. Not money to the Labour Party.

    • Grumpy 5.2
      24 June 2014 at 10:04 pm

      This is the guy Barker claims he does not know.

      [lprent: Yes, I’d be interested in that myself. Last I saw he was saying he’d had dinner with him. Perhaps you could provide a link. Otherwise who knows when I will lift the auto moderation. ]

      • Te Reo Putake 5.2.1
        24 June 2014 at 10:36 pm

        Um, Barker does know Liu. They’ve had dinner, remember? However, there is no evidence that Cunliffe ever met him. I can understand your confusion, it’s hard to keep track of Key’s lies without BLiP’s list close to hand.

      • McFlock 5.2.2
        24 June 2014 at 10:40 pm

        Barker claims to not know Liu?

        I haven’t seen that anywhere.
        You making shit up?

        • grumpy 5.2.2.1
          25 June 2014 at 9:22 am

          lprent is correct, my memory was clearly deficient.
          I have had a bit of a search and found that Barker actually knew Liu before becoming Minister of Internal Affairs. Interestingly, the link also throws up some very interesting facts that I did not know, including that Barker was involved in Liu’s application for citizenship and that Cunliffe was initially not impressed with Liu and originally intended to decline his residency application (until things obviously changed).
          Fascinating from 7.12 in the, link
          http://www.oag.govt.nz/2013/citizenship/part7.htm

          • grumpy 5.2.2.1.1
            25 June 2014 at 10:50 am

            Oops, I think this is the “other” Mr Lui, (Bill) (the report does not say)……interesting though.

            • Te Reo Putake 5.2.2.1.1.1
              25 June 2014 at 11:00 am

              You’re right (eventually). This is Bill Liu, though the report uses his formal name. Nothing to do with this smear at all.

              The report cleared the then minister (“We found no evidence that there was any improper motive, collusion, or political interference in the decision to authorise citizenship for Mr Liu.”), but did make recommendations on how marginal cases like his should be handled in future. Recommendations completely ignored by Williamson in the current case, obviously.

  6. One Anonymous Bloke 6
    24 June 2014 at 4:20 pm

    Love how our lying trash Prime Minister turns on RNZ as soon as they ask him a question he doesn’t like.

    They (RNZ interviewers) really need to grow a pair and challenge him directly on it.

    “Are you serious Prime Minister? Your response to this question is a veiled threat? Bring it on, trash.”

    • ianmac 6.1
      24 June 2014 at 4:26 pm

      A good sign that Key is rattled though OAB. And maybe RNZ is onto him?

    • phillip ure 6.2
      24 June 2014 at 4:44 pm

      maybe leave off the ‘Bring it on, trash.’..

      ..but the rest of it is a suitable response to bullshit like that…

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2.1
        24 June 2014 at 4:53 pm

        No, Phil, I think it appropriate for interviewers to call attention to their subjects’ ethics and tactics and to respond to them aggressively where appropriate: it’s one of the responsibilities duties of the Fourth Estate.

        There are other ways to phrase it, of course, Grass Mud Horse.

  7. tsmithfield 7
    24 June 2014 at 4:25 pm

    For the conspiracy theorists, perhaps Key’s statement that Liu should present his evidence was actually a signal to him that now is a tactically good time for evidence to start being presented.

    • Te Reo Putake 7.1
      24 June 2014 at 5:09 pm

      Key doesn’t need to ‘signal’ to Liu. He could just ask him directly to do so. After all, it’s pretty obvious Liu and senior Nats have been in close contact in recent times and at a lot higher level than Maurice Williamson. You don’t waste the kind of money Liu claims to have laid on them just to watch the organ grinder’s monkey do his little dance.

    • Tracey 7.2
      25 June 2014 at 12:15 pm

      like a second statement you mean?

  8. ianmac 8
    24 June 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Thanks Te Reo Putake. I agree that maybe Key is regretting his, “I hear gossip and rumour about thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars that Mr Liu gave the Labour Party.”
    Gossip monger. Hope that ferret has sharp teeth.

    • Te Reo Putake 8.1
      24 June 2014 at 5:02 pm

      Cheers, Ianmac. As we know, in politics, it’s the lies that bring you down and the tiny tanty at the Radio Nz reporter strongly suggested to me that Key does not want to be asked questions about his role in the smear. And if that’s the case, then that’s exactly where the media needs to start probing. I’d love to see John Armstrong, for one, get stuck in to Key. If not remembering a letter is a resignation matter, then being part of a conspiracy to defame a political rival must be a hanging offence.

  9. Jack 9
    24 June 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Labour need to getaway from the Key/Whale Spew Gotcha Politics, Key has got the media in his backpocket and they are all besotted with the man.

    Playing Gotcha Politics will backfire on Labour, look how MSM destroyed Winstons credibility in the 2008 Election Build Up, MSM made him out to be the biggest crook on earth even though he was never found guilty of any wrongdoing.

    The problem is people believe what the media tell them, the average man in the street will believe Labour has been up to no good after this latest hoohah by Key and the MSM.

    Just watch Key “butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth”, vile politics being played out by MSM.

    • vto 9.1
      24 June 2014 at 4:56 pm

      Yep, the left should now jump elsewhere, and heavily, while some of their lower life like Mallard continue to poke Key and Slater in the ribs over it ….

  10. vto 10
    24 June 2014 at 4:52 pm

    slippery oil
    whale oil
    snake oil
    salesman
    nought more

  11. john 11
    24 June 2014 at 5:03 pm

    I don’t think the Herald are worried about evidence. They did an investigation in to Labour Party donations in 2008.

    They have previously quoted former Labour Party members saying that Liu was well known at fundraising events.

    They have a statement from Lui, and even a photo of him receiving the wine.

    If Labour had admitted at the start that Liu had donated to them, they would look hypocritical, but the story would have ended then.

    Instead, they jumped in the hole, and for the last week have been digging it deeper.

    When the proof finally comes out (I wouldn’t be surprised if the Herald hasn’t had it for weeks, or even since six years ago), Labour will have destroyed public trust.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      24 June 2014 at 5:09 pm

      Now, that was original. Well constructed, clear, a prediction even.

      Your bias is showing, but that’s to be expected.

      Well done: it’s not often a wingnut learns a new trick.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2
      24 June 2014 at 5:13 pm

      …Labour will have demonstrated that they accept donations according to the law and offer nothing in return other than their stated policies. FIFY.

      • chris73 11.2.1
        24 June 2014 at 5:48 pm

        But its not about any laws that have or haven’t been broken is it, its about Cunliffe and whether the voters can believe what he says

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3
      24 June 2014 at 5:19 pm

      How does National make policy, John?

      • vto 11.3.1
        24 June 2014 at 5:29 pm

        When National make policy about the children of east Christchurch and their schools the sole driving factor is money, isn’t it John. The welfare of the children doesn’t get a look in.

        Just like the South Canterbury Finance investors and their reckless and useless investment habits and $1.7billion ….

        (… just to bang on a bit more about it …)

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.1
          24 June 2014 at 5:59 pm

          This flies in the face of Nandor’s valedictory speech.

          Mit der dummheit kämpfen götter selbst vergebens. Schiller.

        • john 11.3.1.2
          24 June 2014 at 6:31 pm

          The govt effectively provided insurance for deposits.

          They took around $750m in premiums, and recovered around a billion dollars from SCF.

          The banking system survived, which was the whole point. Depositors got their money back.

          So $133 BILLION of deposits got guaranteed though one of the most turbulent financial time in living history, and the govt pretty much broke even on the deal.

          I know you like to bang on about it, but that’s because you wrongly think the govt lost $1.7b – it didn’t

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.2.1
            24 June 2014 at 6:48 pm

            In the blink of an eye John, a pedestrian pre-conceived piffle pusher, can turn into Superjohn, a seasoned political campaigner who always argues in good faith on Planet Key.

            It’s a shame about John’s personal responsibility, but.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.2.2
            24 June 2014 at 8:07 pm

            How does National make policy, John?

            I know I asked you that already, and your response makes no attempt to acknowledge it, and I’d ‘hate’ to see your new-found creative originality tainted with bad faith, John.

          • vto 11.3.1.2.3
            25 June 2014 at 8:24 am

            Wrong again john, and the point about the lack of consideration for the children’s welfare stands …. it is just all about the money aint it …. no wonder John Key cried “show us the money”. That is Key to a tee .

            and btw, get your facts and knowledge straight on the SCF and RDGS ’cause you are miles off. SCF was fraudulently letinto the scheme. If it had been left to fail this is what would have happened…

            one, the banking system would not have collapsed at all, that is a joke of a claim; and,

            two, the RDGS would have missed out on a very small amount of entry fees from SCF, negligible in fact; and,

            three, the government would not have to outlay $1,700,000,000 to SCF investors. Sure, a small portion of that has been recovered…. but ….

            the point is the considerations for decision-making by this government, namely $66m per year for the children of east Chch for a few years to recover from the earthquakes ($1.7billion for SCF anyone?); and further namely, bailing out people without insurance for their shonky investments (red zone Chch people cf SCF shabby investors anyone?); amongst much more ….

            you’re a shabby callous tory john and I don’t like you’re type for all the above reasons.

    • freedom 11.4
      24 June 2014 at 5:55 pm

      They have a photo of his partner receiving a bottle of wine.

      Accuracy of information john, it matters.
      It is how this mess started in the first place.

      • john 11.4.1
        24 June 2014 at 6:13 pm

        You’re right of course. My error, though the point remains – the Herald seem to have no trouble pulling out a new piece of evidence every couple of days to back up their claims.

        The will have information from their investigation into Labour donations from 2008, probably info uncovered in the Williamson investigation, they have quoted from former Labour Party members, and they have statements from Liu himself.

    • NZJester 11.5
      24 June 2014 at 6:54 pm

      Tell me john do you really think there is actually any evidence now that the other John has changed his position on the evidence? By the way do we pronounce the J in your name with the same Jamaican style Sh sounding J that we do when we pronounce the J in John Key’s first name?

    • framu 11.6
      25 June 2014 at 8:26 am

      “Labour will have destroyed public trust.”

      whos been spreading rumors again john?

  12. dave 12
    24 June 2014 at 5:54 pm

    this ultra fast broad band wait for the bill on that one 1.5 billion is a joke it will be 7 to 9 billion in the end

    • NZJester 12.1
      24 June 2014 at 7:16 pm

      The thing about the ultra fast broadband that will make it a real joke will be its speed and not its cost dave.
      National is building a big super fast Intranet inside of New Zealand. (And I do mean Intranet and not Internet)
      As long as what you want to access is inside New Zealand it will be nice and fast. But as what most people want to access is held mostly on servers outside this country, just watch the speed drop as everyone tries to use ultra fast speeds over those two cables in and out of New Zealand all at once. Meanwhile our ISP’s are being charged monopoly prices to access those cables and are having to pass those costs onto us making our Internet very costly compared to a lot of other countries.
      Until a competing cable is put in place our Internet prices will remain high.
      When my local exchange got upgraded some time back from ADSL to ADSL2 and I got some extra speed I noticed my access to sites inside NZ speed up but it made little difference to the speed of a lot of the international sites I accessed.

      • infused 12.1.1
        25 June 2014 at 12:19 am

        I guess you didn’t know southern cross carries 480gbit.

        And probably don’t know what a CDN is either.

        Might pay to do some research.

  13. NZJester 13
    24 June 2014 at 6:26 pm

    When I saw John Key had asked him to front up with the evidence my jaw nearly hit the floor from my open mouthed look of disbelief at what I was hearing.

    But then John Key has always been quick to change his story when things start going wrong and claim his new position is what it has been all along. Or if unable to change his story have a convenient brain fade and claim he just can not remember back that far even if it was something less than a week back. He was obviously hoping that because there was photos of Donghua Liu’s wife with someone from Labour that a donation record might turn up.
    The fact it is taking to log for the mud to stick and that it is getting shook back onto them as they try and toss it has him now running for cover.

  14. Sideshow Bob 14
    24 June 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Mr Liu does not necessarily need documentation to prove he spent his money. As long as it came from tax paid income then it is his to do with as he wishes. No accountants, no receipts, no proof of expenditure needed. Many a time I have been at a sports oriented auction rugby charities etc ( no political auctions I promise) and bought something with my own hard earned, tax paid dollars. Anyone want to buy a cricket bat signed by Ian Botham or assorted rugby jerseys from the 70’s 80’s 90’s and 00’s. I even have an Aussie jersey – jeez how much had I had to drink that day? No receipts necessary and I never paid less than $1,000 for any of them. Worthy causes though.

    • Te Reo Putake 14.1
      24 June 2014 at 7:39 pm

      Did you pay cash? If not you’ll be able to provide bank statements to back up your big-noting. Liu can easily do the same.

    • framu 14.2
      25 June 2014 at 8:28 am

      “Mr Liu does not necessarily need documentation to prove he spent his money.”

      if hes making a claim that he did – then yeah, he does

      • Colonial Viper 14.2.1
        25 June 2014 at 8:42 am

        A ‘scouts honour’ should be quite sufficient, according to these people

    • Tracey 14.3
      25 June 2014 at 9:50 am

      He does if he paid through his company which is how he says he paid National.

  15. felix 15
    24 June 2014 at 7:37 pm

    From the linked article:

    Key accused Cunliffe of “gotcha politics” and “a fair degree of hypocrisy”.

    “When National engaged with a Chinese donor it was cash for access. Actually when they [Labour] do it, it wasn’t,” he said.

    What is it with these fucking racists? What the fuck has “Chinese” got to do with any of it?

  16. NZ Femme 16
    25 June 2014 at 11:46 am

    Liu is now saying that the $100 G is inclusive of the Barker cruise ($50G – 60G), the rowing club donation ($2G) and several bottles of wine he won at auction.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281460

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      25 June 2014 at 11:53 am

      “Labour has no more time to waste with Mr Liu’s changing story or National’s version of gotcha politics; we’re focussing on letting NZers know the Labour policies which are going to make a difference to them and the nation”

      • NZ Femme 16.1.1
        25 June 2014 at 11:57 am

        😀

      • James 16.1.2
        25 June 2014 at 12:16 pm

        What – No denial. Just blaming National and Liu?

        That will roll well with the voters.

        It smells like a rat. If Labour do not believe it – they need to deny they took the money. Else it looks smelly.

        Just blaming others makes them look incompetent, or like they are trying to avoid admitting taking the $$$$

        • lprent 16.1.2.1
          25 June 2014 at 2:13 pm

          Pretty damn hard when there isn’t enough detail to look for it. The NZ Herald’s reporting different amounts, different times, different possible venues, keeps reporting donations and auctions from non-Labour events as being for Labour, and hasn’t released the statements from Liu.

          How would you suggest searching any filing or accounting system for that?

          It appears that you are just thick.

    • Tracey 16.2
      25 June 2014 at 12:10 pm

      :l)

      And that some donations were made anonymously…

      Picture me shaking my head. Nice to see you back posting nzfemme

      • NZ Femme 16.2.1
        25 June 2014 at 12:26 pm

        On holiday from study so have more time to play online 🙂

        • Anne 16.2.1.1
          25 June 2014 at 2:27 pm

          You’ve been doing a fantastic job. I’m sure more people than just us are grateful for your efforts.

    • Kiwiri 16.3
      25 June 2014 at 12:38 pm

      true, CV. but some of us can continue to fact check.

      btw, that picture has now been cropped much more closely to totally exclude any hint of the third person in the picture that i saw.

      has someone been into that hawkes bay venue yet? in the picture, the light-fitting on the wall was quite distinctive and may well match the ones at that location.

      • NZ Femme 16.3.1
        25 June 2014 at 12:50 pm

        The Hawkes Bay Opera House underwent extensive renovations 2004-2007. Parts of it were closed earlier this year b/c of concerns around earthquake soundness, and I’m not sure it’s re-opened yet.

        Jared hasn’t published the photo again on twitter since he released the date-stamped version. He’s clammed up since last night.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.