What’s National got to hide?

54 comments on “What’s National got to hide? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Insolent Prick 1

   13 November 2007 at 11:43 am

   Why didn’t you ask this question of the Labour Party Tane? They introduced the Bill without any clamp-down on anonymous donations, long after National had made a commitment to cleaning them up. The PM’s excuse was that without public funding of political parties, the Labour Party couldn’t afford to scrap anonymous donations.

   What has the Labour Party got to hide? Very hollow, Tane.
2. Robinsod 2

   13 November 2007 at 11:53 am

   I think the tories still think they can say whatever they feel like and get a free run in the media – even if it contradicts their previous announcements. Their trust in the memory hole is rather touching.

   I see you’ve got a blog IP and that you haven’t updated it for a month. Why don’t you ask that question of Labour over there? You could even use your “hollow man” line to your heart’s content. You could even write it in bold!
3. Tane 3

   13 November 2007 at 11:58 am

   Prick, we’ve already discussed this, but nice work on the interference. I think the legislation should have tackled anonymous donations from the start, and while I don’t think Labour’s reasons for not doing so stack up they have, contrary to your assertions, been entirely open about their reasons.

   As I said in the article, I’m glad anonymous donates back on the agenda even if it has taken a quiet word from the Greens. Now it’d be nice to know where John Key really stands on the issue, don’t you think?

   Good to see you’re still running David Farrar’s ‘hollow’ line. Unfortunately you’re a punter and you lack even the slightest degree of subtlety, which means it ain’t going to work for you. You want hollow? Go have a look at this:
   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?cat=38
4. Bryce Edwards 4

   13 November 2007 at 12:04 pm

   While I disagree with a lot of National’s policy on political finance, their proposal to repeal the EFB and hold an independent review of all the issues seems a very good one.

   One of the main problems with Labour’s approach to the reform of political finance is that they consistently want to do it via backroom deals and with as little public input as possible. This is essentially why they’ve ended up with such a bad proposal. Their secretive approach has blindsided them to the huge problems that they’ve ended up trying to push through.

   In general when the crucial rules about state funding and election laws are being changed, there should be maximum public debate and maximum involvement of all parties and the public. Labour, the Greens, United, and NZ First have decided to operate in the opposite manner, which is why they should be condemned by anyone who sees themselves as some sort of democrat.

   Bryce
   http://www.liberation.org.nz
5. Tane 5

   13 November 2007 at 12:13 pm

   Bryce, I agree with you that it should have been handled better from the start – a citizens’ assembly directly after the 2005 election followed by a binding referendum would have been the way to go. As it stands we don’t have the time. Politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal, and I’d rather see something reasonable come out of the select committee than have to rely on our current broken electoral law in 2008.

   After the election there’ll be plenty of time to hold a proper public debate of the sort I’ve outlined above, and it’d be good to get a bipartisan commitment of that sort – but I ain’t holding my breath.
6. Insolent Prick 6

   13 November 2007 at 12:16 pm

   Quite right, Bryce. While we come from very different ends of the political spectrum, I do appreciate that your views are honestly-held.

   The ONLY acceptable reform of electoral law would be after an independent commission of inquiry, and/or a citizen’s jury. Allowing the Labour Party to write electoral law to its own self-serving advantage is a disgrace.

   Totally hollow, Tane. I don’t know how you can feel any less than total shame as the new Lord Haw-Haw of the Labour Party.
7. JamesK 7

   13 November 2007 at 12:22 pm

   Hey Prick you must be pretty desperate to keep pulling that hollow line out. Is that all you got?
8. djp 8

   13 November 2007 at 12:27 pm

   >>As it stands we don’t have the time. Politics is the art of the >>possible, not the ideal, and I’d rather see something reasonable come >>out of the select committee than have to rely on our current broken >>electoral law in 2008.

   No way. The amount of ramshackle law that Labour has rammed through without much thought in recent years means that you would have to have blinders on to let them do it again.

   That is on top of assuming anyone would (mistakenly) believe the whole point of this debacle is not a self serving power grab.
9. Insolent Prick 9

   13 November 2007 at 12:41 pm

   You obviously can’t read, JamesK, if you claim that’s all I’ve got. You haven’t managed to counter any of my arguments. That’s very hollow of you.
10. Robinsod 10

    13 November 2007 at 1:08 pm

    IP – you don’t make arguments. You think you make arguments and then when the adults ignore you you make out like it’s ‘cos they can’t face your brilliant wit. It’s not.
11. burt 11

    13 November 2007 at 1:25 pm

    Tane

    Prick, we’ve already discussed this, but nice work on the interference. I think the legislation should have tackled anonymous donations from the start, and while I don’t think Labour’s reasons for not doing so stack up they have, contrary to your assertions, been entirely open about their reasons.

    However Tane you still don’t explain how you can support Labour and trash National on this issue. Either you are against secret donations or you are not. If the inclusion of secret donations by National makes them evil then it also makes Labour evil. Perhaps I’ve lost my partisan glasses this morning so I think the same rules should apply to both parties, you should try loosing yours from time to time.
12. Tane 12

    13 November 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Ah burt, the Nats are the dudes who received 87% of their donations from ‘anonymous’ sources. Anonymous to the public, that is – National would know full well who its donors are.

    As I’ve said, I support clamping down on anonymous donations, and while I’ve disagreed with Labour on their previous stance they’ve been completely open about their reasons for taking it. National, on the other hand, is saying one thing and doing something else entirely. I’d like them to come clean.
13. burt 13

    13 November 2007 at 1:49 pm

    Tane

    So what you are saying is that your are against National receiving more anon donations that Labour. Otherwise you would be equally critical of them receiving anon donations irrespective if one received 87% and the other 50%. The issue of anon donations is a principal issue and principals are not measured in relative percentages. They are absolute.
14. Tane 14

    13 November 2007 at 1:57 pm

    principals are not measured in relative percentages. They are absolute.

    So if, as you often argue burt, Labour are corrupt for misspending (or ‘stealing’) $800,000, then are National equally corrupt for ‘stealing’ $10,000? After all, principles are not measured in relative percentages. They are absolute.

    (And for the record, I’m opposed to anonymous donations in principle. I’d like to see them cleaned up.)
15. burt 15

    13 November 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Tane

    Yes my views on the election overspend situation are exactly as you predict. There should have been charges laid against all parties and they should have been decided in court on each of their own merits. Just as 5 individuals separately being parties in a smash and grab shop looting would be. I would have no issue with seeing all the people who authorised the spending removed from parliament, it could only improve the standard to have them removed.

    Sadly though Labour passed retrospective validation covering 14 years so we (the voters – tax payers) were denied knowing the extent to which we had been robbed. Darnton vs Clark springs to mind as another casualty of that travesty of ‘openness and accountability’.
16. Bryce Edwards 16

    13 November 2007 at 2:59 pm

    Tane, why do you say that the Labour Government never had time to do the process properly? It’s been two years since the last election, and they’ve only just now put this proposal to a select committee. If this issue really is the huge priority that you suggest, shouldn’t the Government have done something earlier?

    Although I agree that there are all sorts of problems in NZ political finance regime, these have been evident for sometime, and haven’t suddenly appeared. Even the head of the Electoral Commission had been publicly requesting that the Government sort out some of the problems for a number of years prior to the 2005, but Labour was never interested. I can point you to his earlier recommendations if necessary.

    But because the EFB is so universally criticised, and you and I can agree that the process has been incredibly dismal, then surely the best approach is to now go back to the drawing board rather than bring in this terrible regime for the next election? Like I’ve said, the current regime has suddenly broken down, but has been in existence for a number of elections – and these have even been elections that Labour has won!

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz
17. r0b 17

    13 November 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Bryce – my guess is that it was because of the delay caused while exploring state funding of political parties. The exact nature of the context / problem wasn’t known until that exploration was complete. It all takes time.
18. r0b 18

    13 November 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Oh – and of course – we all know what made the current regime an issue all of a sudden…
19. Sam Dixon 19

    13 November 2007 at 3:12 pm

    Bryce,you’re being disingenious when you say Labour’s had two years to sort this out.. first there’s been th select committee investigation into the election.. then the AG’s report and all the mess aroudn that.. its only been following that when the Government has had a basis off which to reform the law… policy proposals were put out earlier this year (public funidng was shot down), a Bill was presented a few months later to the House, its been in select committee for the last few months and is about to emerge, probably radically improved…. the Government was not sitting on its hands, it began the legisaltive process when it was practical and is concluding it in time to ensure the next election isn’t suspect to the same abuse the last one was.

    Yup – a citizen’s assembly would have been my choice of how to handle this too.. unfortunately there hasn’tbeen the time.
20. Insolent Prick 20

    13 November 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Try being honest for once, Sam.

    The timeline is as it is, because Labour stole almost a million dollars of public money to illegally spend on its campaign, and expected to get away with it for a year. When they didn’t get away with it, and finally paid the money back, they found they had no money left for the 2008 campaign. To counter this, they had to rewrite electoral law that favoured itself, at the expense of everybody else.

    This is the most self-serving, vile piece of legislation advanced in recent history, by a group of hollow, self-serving, vile New Zealanders. You should hang your head in shame, Sam.

    There is no emergency that can’t be sorted out by a commission of inquiry. Ramming through this Bill, when overwhelmingly the public of New Zealand detest you for it, will come back to haunt you. And you, Sam, a proud member of the Labour movement, will deserve every bit of scorn you get.
21. unaha-closp 21

    13 November 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Thing is if the EFB does come back with radical changes Nats, the Herald, the Human Right Commission will point to it and show that the pressure they are applying right now will have “saved democracy”. This here is now a lose/lose scenario for Labour and it is all down to the draft being so bad. You guys are in damage control mode, saying wait for the select committee.

    What is happening in parliament, can’t they vet their own work? This is a really basic stuff up.
22. Robinsod 22

    13 November 2007 at 3:53 pm

    What is happening in parliament, can’t they vet their own work? This is a really basic stuff up

    Um, closp that’s kinda what parliament is for. It’s called having checks and balances and it’s got something to do with this democracy thing you all seem so concerned about.
23. Tane 23

    13 November 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Prick, you appear to have only two modes:

    a) “blah blah blah… hang your head in shame”, and

    b) “hollow hollow hollow, you are all hollow”

    You need some new material bro.
24. dave 24

    13 November 2007 at 5:39 pm

    this is interesting
25. unaha-closp 25

    13 November 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Um, closp that’s kinda what parliament is for. It’s called having checks and balances and it’s got something to do with this democracy thing you all seem so concerned about.

    But it is the fact that all the checks and balances are National Party & Act MPs that should concern us.

    This is what has happened: Party A put up a bill that was controversial. Party B attacked it, along with Paper X. If the bill is massively changed by select committee and reintroduced – A looks bad for introducing rubbish, B & X look good for securing the changes through their campaign.
26. dave 26

    13 November 2007 at 5:46 pm

    THis, is what was interesting…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlwp1syglBc&e
27. Matthew Pilott 27

    13 November 2007 at 6:03 pm

    UC, Paper X and Party B might look good, but fact is the SC is already running with it, and this current business won’t change the outcome at all.

    Changes made will be a result of the select committee, so Lab simply has the chance to agree to recommendations – not exactly a bad look…

    IP – quite the crock of shit there, but I like the fertility of your imagination. Give us some evidence that this has anything to do with a shortfall in Labour funding, cheers boss.

    The ones who should be ‘hanging their head in shame’ (my my you lot get all twitchy sometimes, like turning on a tap) are those who want to stop Government Departments informing the public of their activities – you only oppose this because you’re against what the Government is doing. So good on you, support the suppression of democracy, while ranting about how it’s the other side doing it – you look like a complete hypocrite, or just too shallow to see the conequences of what you’re advocating.
28. Insolent Prick 28

    13 November 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Matthew,

    You clearly don’t read the news. But let’s start with the government’s massive publicity machine–worth over $60 million a year. It peaked in 2005–we don’t have the 2006 numbers yet, but the Government spent $10 million more in 2005 than in the previous year, advertising its own policies. If you’re really concerned about the power of big, dirty money, there is nothing bigger in New Zealand than the Government, and nothing dirtier than a political party appropriating the money to get itself re-elected illegally. Except it won’t be illegal next year, because the Labour Party plans to change the law to allow itself to do it again.

    Miraculously, it’s not until April next year that the Government will start a multi-multi-million dollar campaign to advertise the primary health strategy. Cunningly, and delicately timed to coincide with the next election.

    If you weren’t aware of the excuse the PM made for scrapping reforms to anonymous donations, here is the reference from the Press a few months ago:

    “Clark’s most revealing comment came as she pushed her stock line that the price of a crackdown on anonymous donors must be the state funding of parties. “The Labour Party isn’t led by me with a $50 million bank account,” she said. National leader John Key was the direct target of this jibe, but it was miscalculated. Outside Labour circles, most New Zealanders do not hold wealth and success in jealous disdain. The comment exposed Labour’s frustration at its inability to dent Key’ s popularity and the fear that his support will translate into healthy campaign funding for National.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4164573a24077.html

    Helen Clark is turning out to be a very hollow woman.
29. the sprout 29

    13 November 2007 at 7:51 pm

    oh there you go again IP, ascribing hollowness to Labour instead of National. it’s sooooo good, i can feel myself turning as your masterful persuasive techniques seep into my being. you are so powerful, so convincing, so astute and insightful. already we are but putty in your hands, The Hollow Men aren’t National at all. so clever.
30. Robinsod (moderator) 30

    13 November 2007 at 7:55 pm

    IP – all you’re doing is recycling tired old lines. Most people have the good sense to avoid your childish attention seeking but ‘cos I feel a bit sorry for you I’ll bite.

    Advertising of government social initiatives is good – that’s ‘cos it’s good to let people know what they are entitled to. Spending in this area is increasing because New Zealander’s entitlements are increasing. Under National I’d expect this to be reversed as “just to let you know you’ll be spending more at the doctor/school/on your retirement” isn’t the message National will want to send – that means National will interfere with Govt departments to protect its image (as it did with benefit cuts in the 90’s).

    If by primary health strategy you mean PHO’s then good stuff – I found out about PHOs from a TV commercial a few months ago, joined up and am now enjoying much cheaper doctor’s visits and prescriptions. So are many of my friends and their kids. Yay!

    As for the question of state funding? I’m in favour of it. Currently all political parties are dependent on some form of corporate donation – that leave the door open for interference in the system such as the deal cut between National and the Insurance Council. When the cap for campaigning is only a couple of million per major party then I don’t think say $10m spread across all parties every three years is too high a price to pay for transparent democracy. I suspect we spend that much on pushing enrollment every election why not ensure it’s a process isolated from external influence all the way through?

    And “hollow woman”? – yes IP you’ve had you fun with that word for the day now fuck of and let the adults talk.
31. the sprout 31

    13 November 2007 at 8:03 pm

    Robinsod said: “Advertising of government social initiatives is good – that’s ‘cos it’s good to let people know what they are entitled to. Spending in this area is increasing because New Zealander’s entitlements are increasing. Under National I’d expect this to be reversed as “just to let you know you’ll be spending more at the doctor/school/on your retirement” isn’t the message National will want to send”

    exactly. National have nothing to loose from gagging govt departments. when National’s in power in means less bad publicity. when Labour’s in power in means less good publicity for Labour.
    why, having government departments talk about what they are doing for people in real terms could turn elections meritocratic – then all the corporate msm spin in the world wouldn’t get National elected.

    National would hardly want the sort of performance appraisal that might come from government departments running publicity on “what this National government’s policies actually mean for you”
32. Insolent Prick 32

    13 November 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Oh, welcome back, Sprout. You seem to have disappeared for a while, after you were proven to be an outright liar in your claims about Allan Peachey, Rangitoto College, and Selwyn.

    I’m pleased you are concerned about “corporate msm spin”, Sprout, because the biggest communication units are in government departments. The IRD has nine people working on INTERNAL communications alone: quite apart from the screeds of external communications. Westpac, on the other hand, an organisation of similar size, seems to manage quite well with two people.

    I really don’t think you will find many cheerleaders for the government spending $70 million of taxpayers’ money promoting its own policies next year, Sprout. But keeping pushing it.
33. Robinsod 33

    13 November 2007 at 8:37 pm

    IP – you didn’t prove anything. in fact I believe you were caught out lying in that very thread. Take your delusions and leave.
34. Matthew Pilott 34

    13 November 2007 at 8:48 pm

    Why’d ya think these righties have to write down when they think they’ve “won” an argument. It doesn’ work in comdy, but it’s still a good joke on the old blog scene 😉
35. Spam 35

    13 November 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Finally, robinsod actually tries to address some of IPs questions / arguments, rather than just saying something about “recycled lines” or telling him to “fuck off” or some such drivel about “adults talking”.

    Oh wait – he still managed to say all those things as well. At least its a start to a debate….
36. Robinsod 36

    13 November 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Spam – are you Prick’s girlfriend or mum or something? I mean I’m sure he can stand up for himself. Oh, that’s right, he can’t.
37. Spam 37

    13 November 2007 at 9:46 pm

    As for the question of state funding? I’m in favour of it. Currently all political parties are dependent on some form of corporate donation – that leave the door open for interference in the system such as the deal cut between National and the Insurance Council

    Firstly, what deal? you mean privatisation of ACC? You mean like they actually implemented when they were in government? Its a bit difficult to argue that the nats are only going to enact a policy because of a buy-off, when they have previously implemented exactly that policy.

    Secondly, re state funding: As soon as that comes along, the ruling classes are set – they don’t have to listen to their grass-roots supporters, they don’t have to fund-raise, they don’t need members. You really want that? Ever wondered why public companies, who have already extracted capital from shareholders, still try to keep the shareholders happy? Also, state funding massively tilts the playing field towards the encumbant. Want to start a new party? Sorry, but you didn’t get any votes at the last election, so you get no funding. Would we have the Maori party, or even NZ first under this regime?
38. Spam 38

    13 November 2007 at 9:53 pm

    Spam – are you Prick’s girlfriend or mum or something? I mean I’m sure he can stand up for himself. Oh, that’s right, he can’t.

    I wasn’t actually defending him. I was just pointing out that abuse seems to be your preference, rather than debate.

    If you guys want a echo room where no one comes, other than those who want to give cyber-high-fives at what a great bunch of people you are, and agree with everything you say, then carry on abusing anyone who disagrees with you.

    I thought moderators were supposed to, you know, be moderate.
39. Robinsod 39

    13 November 2007 at 9:55 pm

    No spam – I mean the re-privatisation of ACC, something the Nats avoided admitting they wanted to do in the 2005 election campaign. And all of the issue you raise about state funding are easier to solve thorough legislation than dealing with corporate donations are.

    It’s entirely viable to have a formula based on a mixture of party vote, party membership and number of electoral MPs that ensures new parties can get a foot in the door. You say state funding tilts the playing field towards the incumbent, I’d like to see you provide some evidence of that. Here’s a hint for you: in established western-model democracies you can’t.
40. Spam 40

    13 November 2007 at 10:07 pm

    No spam – I mean the re-privatisation of ACC, something the Nats avoided admitting they wanted to do in the 2005 election campaign.

    And re-privatisation is different from privatisation how? And hiding it? You mean that their 2005 ACC policy is somehow hidden? Including the bit where it says ” Competition will be allowed in all accounts except the non-earners’ account.” or “Changes to ACC legislation will happen early in our first term in government.”

    Yes, you’re right. Very shady. They should be up-front about that, and not hide it away in policy statements.
41. Spam 41

    13 November 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Oh – and by the way: In my company, where we actually give a shit about not killing or hurting our staff, we got quite a acc / insurance cut when it was privatised. And teh evil corporate money grubbing capitalist took that cut and distributed it amongst the staff, for things like gym memberships or sports gear.
42. Robinsod 42

    13 November 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Spam – that policy was published very late in the campaign and I may be wrong about this but I seem to remember it came out only after the first IC email leak. As for your company – I didn’t say all employers are… what did you say? evil money something or other froth froth froth… and yes some companies saved money in the short term because the market was in its early flux days but claims were more difficult to extract and it’s likely that once the dust settled we’d’ve seen huge inefficiencies in spent (look at the US health system if you want an example in practice). Interestingly several major companies (including BP) supported the re-nationalisation of ACC completely.

    And you haven’t provided an example of state funding favouring an incumbent govt yet, Spam. Were you just talking out of your arse?
43. Insolent Prick 43

    13 November 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Robinsod,

    So here you are again proven to be a liar about National’s ACC policy.

    I would be fascinated to see what kind of state funding model you could propose that doesn’t favour the existing parties in Parliament. Already the broadcasting allocation model, which is public funding, overwhelmingly favours the major parties. There isn’t a single small party in Parliament, or outside, that believes that the broadcasting funding model is fair.
44. Robinsod 44

    13 November 2007 at 11:04 pm

    IP – where am I “proven to be a liar”? You’re doing that thing again where you can’t run an argument so you slander me. The weird thing is that no matter how much I (or other people) point it out to you you don’t seem to grasp that you are making an arse of yourself. It’s not just about point-scoring Prick – I feel kinda sorry for you too.
45. Spam 45

    14 November 2007 at 8:39 am

    Spam – that policy was published very late in the campaign

    It was published in August. And whether its a policy supported by BP or others is irrelevant – you were insinuating that National had some policy to covertly introduce privatised ACC, and further that the policy was only due to a pay-off from the insurance council. This is clearly wrong – the policy was out in the open, published well before the election. Secondly, it is a policy that they have always supported – and one that they actually enacted.

    And you haven’t provided an example of state funding favouring an incumbent govt yet, Spam. Were you just talking out of your arse?

    And you haven’t provided any proof of where the insurance industry (or any other company) paid the nats cash in return for policy. Were you just talking out your arse? And while we’re at it, how about you give me some examples of where state funding hasn’t favoured the incumbents.

    I gave you some specific concerns about state funding, which you just dismiss as ‘solveable’, with no substance whatsoever. Even Helen had backed-off from state funding, until she pushed through an even more draconian state-funding-by-stealth.
46. Robinsod 46

    14 November 2007 at 8:55 am

    Nah Spam – I asked first. I’m not gonna dig up those insurance council emails until you come up with the goods to back up your opinion first. Considerer it a good faith issue. And I gave you a shorthand version of statefunding that might work (perhaps a certain amount of funding allocated on party membership size regardless of whether a party is in parliament or not).
47. Spam 47

    14 November 2007 at 9:06 am

    Nah Spam – I asked first.

    Sorry, but I have a job – a real one, not a state funded one. So I don’t have time to do any research on it. Not that its required anyway, because I wasn’t the one aserting that everything will be OK. I’ve got the status quo on my side – if you want to make changes, then you provide the case for it.

    And as for your “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours first” good-faith crap – what is this? Kindergarten? Do I have to somehow earn your trust before you’ll actually debate yourself? Well, if you want some form of ‘evidence’ from me, I gave it to you with the national ACC policy released before the election.
48. Robinsod 48

    14 November 2007 at 9:14 am

    Hey Spam – I also have a job (and it’s not state funded). Glad to see you do too. I’m always pleased when someone comes out with the “I’ve got a real job to do” line – I’m sure if you had proof on hand you’d post it. Never mind.
49. Insolent Prick 49

    14 November 2007 at 9:20 am

    Don’t tell lies, Robinsod. You have no evidence that the National Party received a million dollars from the National Party in exchange for its ACC policy, just as I have no evidence that Helen has been in a 20-year lesbian relationship with Judith. The difference is, Robinsod, I don’t make up allegations I can’t prove.

    You have claimed that the National Party concealed its policy. Lee pointed to where that policy was, online, before the 2005 election. That policy was no more than a repeat of previous National Party policy. You also cannot point to any instance where National hinted it would change its ACC policy.

    It’s very hollow of you to tell these lies, Robinsod.

    I have to say that the quality of commentary from the Standard’s supporters has dropped considerably, and you are one of the prime offenders, Robinsod. Hell, just last night the Standard engaged in what must be the worst kind of defamation against anybody that I’ve ever seen on a blog. That must make you feel proud.
50. Tane 50

    14 November 2007 at 9:27 am

    You have no evidence that the National Party received a million dollars from the National Party

    Well that would be rather pointless, wouldn’t it?
51. Insolent Prick 51

    14 November 2007 at 9:32 am

    A slip of the tongue, Tane. Even Michael Cullen has those sometimes.

    It should have read: “You have no evidence that the National Party received a million dollars from the insurance industry.”

    I’m not so hollow as to not admit a very rare mistake, Tane. I’ll leave the hollowness to you guys, who bluster, defame, and as of last night, engage in some pretty hefty smear, to avoid admitting that you’re wrong.
52. Robinsod 52

    14 November 2007 at 9:35 am

    Fine – I’ve only got an offline version of the IC letter but it’s from Chris Ryan (the IC chief exec) and the relevant par is par 2:

    “The details of teh policy have been deliberately kept out of the [National party ACC] announcement after consultation with the insurance council”

    It was dated 25th August 2005.

    IP – I never said they received a million dollars from the IC but it’s likely they received money through one of their anonymous trusts (I’d suggest it’s a good thin the EFB will address these trusts in its next drafting).

    And yes, things got a bit out of hand last night. However I see that that has been dealt with. As far as “worst kind of defamation” goes though, I was accused of being a molester and a rapist on Kiwiblog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/human_rights_commission_on_electoral_finance_bill.html#comment-340972) and it was never deleted or censured. Perhaps you should email DPF to describe your outrage at that?

    Oh, but that’s right you don’t actually care – you just like feeding your little ego with the delusion you have the moral high-ground.
53. Insolent Prick 53

    14 November 2007 at 9:43 am

    Robinsod,

    If the claim about you identified you by name, and accompanied an action-plan to smear your name through mud along with the claim you were a molester and a rapist, as was effectively included in the Standard last night, I would be the first to defend you.

    I’m pleased however, that you admit that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim that the National Party received a million dollars from the insurance industry. You shouldn’t go around making up claims you can’t sustain, Robinsod. It makes you look dishonest at worst, and in the least, very hollow.
54. Robinsod 54

    14 November 2007 at 9:53 am

    IP – you fool, the email shows corporate interference with party policy. That was my point. My exact words were “a deal cut” clearly there was a deal cut and at the very least we can say for sure it was a deal between the Nats and the IC not to disclose full the ACC policy – if the Nats didn’t get something out of that then they are pretty useless negotiators or crazy ideologues who believe their strategies should be run by corporate interests.

    Oh and by claiming I said the IC paid a million dollars you’re misrepresenting me. That makes you the liar.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS