Who are National’s moles?

60 comments on “Who are National’s moles? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   7 July 2008 at 7:38 am

   So let me get this straight. John Key is prepared to lie to his direct colleagues and is willing to promises loyalty to the one while giving it to the other. What’s more he can live with himself afterwards while having to work with this same person and if I’m correct he went onto discretely lobbying for himself as the leader the moment Don Brash stepped down.

   In other words he’s a lying, sleazy, only loyal to his own interests (and those of his masters abroad of course. LOL) son of a bitch, and there are people who actually want to vote for him?

   If the New Zealanders really are stupid enough to go for this sleaze bag they deserve everything they are going to get and then some.

   While I’m certain that stuff happens and it is just politics, this little episode alone proves that John Key is not interested in consensus and democracy. Lying, political manoeuvring call it what you want I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him. A smiling Assassin indeed. English learned the hard way.

   What the leaks proof is that there are is still some decent people in the National party
2. andy 2

   7 July 2008 at 8:02 am

   There is a special editors note in bold in the SST (letters to editor) about Hager and his sources.

   From memory it dispels the email myth by adding that Hager has received other information not held on Parliamentary Services computers.

   Anyone with a copy that can confirm?

   travellerev

   I don’t think calling Key sleazy or SOB helps debate. I think he is being economical with the truth and possibly working in his own and certain peoples interests, but what politician doesn’t.
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   7 July 2008 at 8:44 am

   Anyone with a copy that can confirm?

   My edition had:

   Nicky Hager says his information was not gained by persons hacking into the parliamentary computer or by some other illegal means. The information leaked to him did not come from either the parliamentary computer system or from Parliamentary Services or its staff.
4. Ari 4

   7 July 2008 at 8:52 am

   So, which is more likely: National ignored the disclaimer, or tried to smear Hager despite it in the hopes that nobody would notice or that the righties would play him off as untrustworthy for them?
5. andy 5

   7 July 2008 at 8:54 am

   Pb

   Thats the one cheers! IMO this was quite an important disclaimer from the SST.
6. monkey-boy 6

   7 July 2008 at 8:58 am

   why don’t you just ask Hager?
7. travellerev 7

   7 July 2008 at 9:02 am

   Ah Andy,

   As I said I’m sure stuff happens and it’s just politics.

   However politicians who are not willing to risk rejection by the electorate of their policies and are willing to stick a knifes in their colleagues backs, politicians who use sleazy PR companies who are known for scaremongering and manipulation techniques are sleaze bags in my opinion. Oh and let’s not forget the “it’s just banking” strip club visits he made while being an investment banker to get guys to cough up loads of money. For one of the sleaziest, most sexist banks; Merrill Lynch. Rising all the way to top advising the most corrupt organisation in the world the Federal Reserve of New York.

   This is what you have to be in order to get anywhere at Merrill Lynch:

   A Merrill Lynch training tape for rookie brokers maps out the road to success on Wall Street: ‘ the tenacity of a rattlesnake, the heart of a black widow spider and the hide of an alligator.’

   Judging by his nickname, the Smiling Assassin, he must have been bloody good at rattle snaking, black widowing and alligatoring.

   Sorry mate, in that world only scum rises to the top.

   You might want to read this about the work ethics at the Bankers trust another bank John Key thrived in:
   http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/the-bankers-trust-tapes-2/
   Watch this documentary to learn more about the federal reserve:
   http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/g-edward-griffin-on-the-federal-reserve-of-new-york/

   As far as I’m concerned John Key is as Hollow as they come and as far as I’m concerned there is no debate.
8. Steve Pierson 8

   7 July 2008 at 9:39 am

   Monkey-boy. he has been asked and like any responsible journalist he doesn’t devulge confidential sources. but he does say they are National members, not parliamentary staff.
9. Ari 9

   7 July 2008 at 9:41 am

   Judging by his nickname, the Smiling Assassin, he must have been bloody good at rattle snaking, black widowing and alligatoring.

   While I’m not a big fan of Key and think of him as at best a conveniently populist figurehead, there is something inherently wrong with seeing a sentence starting with “judging by his nickname” attempt to be taken seriously.
10. r0b 10

    7 July 2008 at 9:46 am

    why don’t you just ask Hager?

    I have seen Hager asked in person. He is very discrete. Whomever is leaking to Hager can continue to do so in confidence.

    What the leaks proof is that there are is still some decent people in the National party

    Hear hear!
11. higherstandard 11

    7 July 2008 at 9:48 am

    sp

    revulge – now that is a brilliant non-word I’ll add it to the list.

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Made_up_Words

    I still can’t see why it’s such great investigative journalism to discover that the Nats are using these PR consultants after all they have been doing so for over a decade.

    rOb

    Indeed the Prime Minister was fulsome in her praise for past National PMs over the weekend apparently.
12. Brett Dale 12

    7 July 2008 at 9:49 am

    I wonder what would happen if a right wing Journo had a mole in the Labour party. The left wing media would be up in arms, calling for the guy to be arrested, and you guys have the nerve to complain about Fox news.

    [lprent: I don’t complain about fox news – I’m appalled that it is allowed to call itself ‘news’]
13. gobsmacked 13

    7 July 2008 at 9:56 am

    Nixon’s mole: Deep Throat

    National’s mole: Deep South
14. r0b 14

    7 July 2008 at 10:06 am

    Sorry for the off topic, but I want to note that 08wire is off to a flying start today:
    http://08wire.org/index.php

    Exploding videos, and serious analysis too!
    http://08wire.org/2008/07/07/the-50-year-economic-report-card/

    (Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with 08wire and I have no idea who they are)
15. ak 15

    7 July 2008 at 10:10 am

    Cheap Stoat
    Tory Channel
    Robbers’ Dobbers
    Nats Rats
16. Graeme 16

    7 July 2008 at 10:16 am

    Information obtained under the OIA shows the million dollars that has been spent on employing on creating Brand Key has come from the Leader’s Budget.

    Interesting theory, but neither the National Leader’s Office nor the Parliamentary Service is subject to the Official Information Act.
17. The Auditor 17

    7 July 2008 at 10:28 am

    [Tane: Nice try mate, but you were banned months ago and you know we don’t allow unsubstantiated smears.]
18. Robinsod 18

    7 July 2008 at 10:31 am

    Oh you’re an angry wee man aren’t you – you’re not Bill English by any chance?
19. Robinsod 19

    7 July 2008 at 10:35 am

    Actually no – you’re insolent prick. I can smell you bro. Still f*cking pigs I see…
20. Graeme 20

    7 July 2008 at 10:44 am

    [Tane: Nice try mate, but you were banned months ago and you know we don’t allow unsubstantiated smears.]

    Was it really? I don’t know the history, but it seemed like a good analogy – claiming that this information is from the OIA is equivelent to claiming something else via the OIA.

    If anything, the subsequent statement (which I won’t repeat – this is your site after all) was designed to be false: this statement about having evidence under the OIA is false, just like my claiming [false statement X] can be proved under the OIA is false.
21. Tane 21

    7 July 2008 at 10:57 am

    Graeme, that particular commenter was previously banned for repeated personal attacks against the authors of this site and for breach of policy. He’s also recently been posting names of left-wing activists he thinks might be involved with this site, using a range of IPs and pseudonyms to get around the ban.

    Obviously I have no objection to arguments or criticisms made in good faith – they’re what makes a site like this worth reading. But we’re not going to put up with disruptive trolls.
22. Steve Pierson 22

    7 July 2008 at 11:07 am

    Graeme. That’s what the SST story said, and are you sure on that because an OIA request got the footage of Clark talkng to the jounro conference, and that came from parliamentary service.
23. Felix 23

    7 July 2008 at 11:14 am

    Ari

    there is something inherently wrong with seeing a sentence starting with “judging by his nickname’

    Yes, but it’s worth noting it’s not a nickname applied by the media or his political enemies, it’s the nickname given to him by his close colleagues and admirers in the finance world – his biggest fans.
    It serves to highlight the value system of Johnny’s environment – the one he did so well in.

    travellerev

    as far as I’m concerned there is no debate.

    And therein lies the rub. If the “Keymasters” want to debate issues, bring it on.

    If the New Zealanders really are stupid enough to go for this sleaze bag they deserve everything they are going to get and then some.

    Yep. It’s going to funny if he does win – to watch the creeping agony as the horrible reality dawns on middle NZ that they’ve elected David Brent.
24. NX 24

    7 July 2008 at 11:28 am

    but he does say they are National members, not parliamentary staff.

    Well sorry to point out the obvious, but how can you trust Hager? After all he wrote ‘Seeds of distrust’ which cost Labour some of their vote in 2005. So by trusting him now, aren’t you having your cake and eating it too?
25. Graeme 25

    7 July 2008 at 11:36 am

    Steve – I am sure that that OIA does not apply to the Parliamentary Service.

    As I understood it, the OIA over the tape of the speech would have been to Ministerial Services (Helen Clark being the Prime Minister). I suppose its possible that that was the basis upon which the PM was refusing its release – you requested a copy of the tape from Ministerial Services, Ministerial Services does not have a copy of the tape, the tape is held by the Parliamentary Office, to whom I have directed your request (and when it arrived, they’d have said they weren’t subject to the OIA). The argument would then have been over whether this was a ruse – was the speech given by the PM or by the Leader of the Labour Party etc. and did it really matter?

    In any event, the Parliamentary Service is not subject to the OIA – or we’d have heard exactly how much Labour spent on its parliamentary-funded post-budget advertising etc.
26. r0b 26

    7 July 2008 at 11:50 am

    Well sorry to point out the obvious, but how can you trust Hager? After all he wrote ‘Seeds of distrust’ which cost Labour some of their vote in 2005. So by trusting him now, aren’t you having your cake and eating it too?

    Ahhh – what? And after reading it again – what?

    If anything the fact that Hager has attacked both left (Labour) and right (National) should make a neutral observer rather more inclined to trust him don’t you think?

    Hager speaks what he believes to be the truth, and no one should rule out what he says because they don’t want to hear his message.

    Espiner on Hager:
    http://stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/06/30/hagers-return-should-make-national-very-afraid/

    Say what you like about the conclusions he draws, his facts are almost always correct. Hager is meticulous about checking his sources.
27. Draco TB 27

    7 July 2008 at 11:54 am

    Well sorry to point out the obvious, but how can you trust Hager?

    Because he publishes well researched information. The thing about facts is that you only have to accept them – you don’t have to like them.
28. NX 28

    7 July 2008 at 11:56 am

    Hager speaks what he believes to be the truth,

    Get no argument from me there.

    Oh, & I meant 2002 in my previous comment.
29. Pascal's bookie 29

    7 July 2008 at 12:01 pm

    r0b, NX seems find the following questions most important when working out the value of evidence:

    Who is saying it?

    How loyal have they been to my position the past?

    Which is perhaps worth bearing in mind should s/he stick around.
30. r0b 30

    7 July 2008 at 12:08 pm

    PB, sadly, that seems a fair summary.
31. Steve Pierson 31

    7 July 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Graeme. Ah, true. I thought that was odd about the PM tape coming from parliamentary services.

    Anyway, the SST articel did say info obtained under the OIA has revelaed the moeny is coing from the Leader’s Budget, and I don’t have grounds to doubt that.
32. NX 32

    7 July 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Have you read ‘seeds of mistrust’? Was it a fair assessment of the Labour government?
33. gobsmacked 33

    7 July 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Follow-up to Matthew Hooten’s comments about Nicky Hager on “Nine to Noon” last week: this morning Hager received an apology from Radio New Zealand.

    Those who want to continue with the “theft” smear, without any evidence, should perhaps consult with their lawyers first.
34. NX 34

    7 July 2008 at 1:29 pm

    From the Herald:

    “Meanwhile, in the House, there was the highly unusual sight of Helen Clark warmly embracing the journalism of activist Nicky Hager.

    On previous occasions, such as his Seeds of Mistrust story on genetic modification, his articles on the activities of New Zealand spy bases, and the downright wrong story alleging SIS spies had infiltrated the Maori Party, Clark would have cheerfully driven a stake through his heart.”

    ^ see I’m not making up sh1t. Clark has/had a major problem with Hager’s interpretation.
    So to give credence to Hager is at the expense of your own Dear Leader.
35. Dilip 35

    7 July 2008 at 1:32 pm

    No they do not Mr Pierson. The sunday star times article does not mention official information act request or document in either Nicky Hagar article or Ruth Laugeson article. There is no OIA document from national party showing how much National spent on crosby textor or use of public money for it. You say there is SST reference to it but there is not. You made that up.
36. Steve Pierson 36

    7 July 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Dilip, I read the article amongst a bunch of other stuff yesterday and updated this post (which I wrote last week) later. Thought I read stuff about OIA, maybe I’ve got it wrong but the substance is correct… the money is coming out of the taxpayer-funded leader’s fund (previously, I believed it would be from the HQ funds).
37. Steve Pierson 37

    7 July 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Dilip. As you have the article in front of you, perhaps you could give us the words around the mention of use of the Leader’s Fund.
38. outofbed 38

    7 July 2008 at 1:44 pm

    meanwhile at o8 wire John the Chameleon
39. Dilip 39

    7 July 2008 at 1:44 pm

    No Mr Pierson the substance is not correct. You had no evidence that crosby textor is paid from leader’s fund, no OIA request, no OIA document, no evidence for amount spend on crosby textor, and although you say SST say there is this connection there is not. If you have people tell you you are wrong and you continue to make up new reason for why you are right which prove wrong then you lie again. That is just smear you make up with no evidence. You hope smear stick but you should try come up with credible evidence because you have no evidence but make smear anyway.
40. Steve Pierson 40

    7 July 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Dilip. I’m happy to amend that minor section of the post if I’ve remembered the article incorrectly. I can’t find it online, but if you want to supply the relevant parts of the text, I seem to remember the opening couple of paragraphs were the ones. maybe, you could give us your thoughts on who the mole is at the same time.

    To assert I would lie about the contents of a publicly available newspaper article is absurd.
41. Disengaged 41

    7 July 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Parliamentary Services are exempt from the OIA. The definition of departments specifically excludes Parliamentary Services as can be seen under Clause 2(1): Department means a Government Department named in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 (other than the Parliamentary Counsel Office)
    Department: this definition was amended, as from 1 October 1985, by section 71(1) Parliamentary Service Act 1985 (1985 No 128) by omitting the words “the Legislative Department and’.

    They are also exempted from the Ombudsmen Act(1975).
42. Dilip 42

    7 July 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Mr Pierson you can read link at http://stuff.co.nz/4600847a20455.html . This is Nicky Hagar article. There is no talk of OIA request or one million spend on Crosby Textor or whether paid by leader’s fund or parliamentary fund. This is not minor part of your article. This is smear that you write without any evidence. You say there is reference in SST to back up your claim but there is not. You make up original claim and you make up SST evidence. You say you have done lots of reading and maybe you get it wrong. That is not excuse. You do not make smear like that without evidence which you do not have. You are caught out making up smear.

    [Dilip. That’s the SST from two weeks ago, I’m talking about the SST article from yesterday. Perhaps you shouldn’t go spouting off when you haven’t seen the article. SP]
43. travellerev 43

    7 July 2008 at 2:12 pm

    A few more juicy details about what John Key was up to as a banker.
    When he just began at the Bakers trust he was a forex dealer. Now there is forex dealing and forex dealing. The first is legitimate dealing in foreign currencies and up to a point it may even be somewhat speculative but within morally defensible bounds.
    But than you have a different kind of forex dealing which is dangerous and predatory causing entire economies to go into depression. Such as the Asian crisis in 1997-8.

    Once upon a time Andrew Krieger worked for the Bankers trust in New York. Andy was one of the Bankers trust golden boys, a genius and able to command huge amounts of money. He is also the kind of guy that chops 400 trees of publicly owned forest next to his house because his 12 year old son needs a tennis court. A real friendly kind of a guy.
    http://sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=35831

    Anyway in 1987 this Andrew decided that to gamble with the NZ dollar would be a good thing to do so he calls his account manager in new Zealand and together they mounted a brutal speculative attack on the Kiwi dollar. The attack, which has entered forex (foreign exchange) trading legend for its scale, audacity and profitability, prompted Reserve Bank alarm that the currency would collapse.

    This account manager was John Key.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4385816a6160.html

    Asked if he admired the man who almost destroyed the Kiwi dollar with his help he said: Asked if he admired Krieger at the time, Key says, “yes, I think at the time, yes, he was a very intelligent guy.

    And goes on to say: “He was a pioneer, in the sense he was one of the few people in the world who understood the options market before it was really established. He blazed a trail and that gave him a strategic advantage early on.”

    Key says he does not believe a moral issue arises for the traders who make these speculative attacks on currencies, or for the dealing rooms that carry out their orders. “I don’t really see it as a judgemental business. You’re simply executing orders for people.

    It’s just business guys. It might be your livelihoods but hey it’s just following orders.

    John Key ended up as the global head for forex for Merrill Lynch from 1999 until march 2001. Merrill Lynch was one of two banks involved in the Asian Financial crisis which also caused major problems for NZ. ML made huge amounts of money before the feeding bonanza collapsed after which the lost lots of money again.
    What you reckon did John Key get the top job because he told people that it was not OK to play with entire economies and the lively hoods of millions of people or did he get there because he possessed the right Wall street mentality?

    I would like to leave you with a nice sketch about what caused the sub prime market crash and what the function of Investment bankers was in this crisis. And yes, John Key traded in Bonds and Derivatives, in fact he was also the European head of Bonds and derivatives for Merrill Lynch. Were did he learn about this trade:
    Oh oops, the Bankers trust bank was instrumental in developing these particular Bonds and Derivatives financial products.

    The Bankers trust collapsed after the revelations about their nasty fraudulent trading in 1995 the very year was head hunted by Merrill Lynch. Yep, John Key is a real gem.
    Sorry for the link whoring but here is the sketch in all it’s glory, enjoy: http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/interview-with-an-investment-banker/
44. Lew 44

    7 July 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Dilip: What of this, from the NBR: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/national-defends-use-parliamentary-services-funds-32794

    The pertinent quote is “Today in the Sunday Star-Times Hager said Crosby-Textor invoices in 2007-08 were going to Key’s parliamentary office instead of the party.”

    I think you owe Steve an apology. Or you need to start accusing the NBR of running an anti-National smear campaign.

    Your call.

    L
45. bill brown 45

    7 July 2008 at 2:21 pm

    There was another article in the SST about this – it is not on line (I was trying to find it this morning)
46. r0b 46

    7 July 2008 at 2:22 pm

    So to give credence to Hager is at the expense of your own Dear Leader.

    NX, I don’t have a Dear Leader, I have a PM. Human, fallible, hardworking and admirable.

    You seem to be under the impression that I blindly support everything Labour does. No. I think they have got stuff wrong, been too timid, and made a bit of a mess of their third term. In terms of policy I am more Green than Labour. Like many on the left I’m interested in the facts, in constructive criticism, and how the left can always improve itself. (Lord knows if we want constructive criticism the left are going to have to generate it themselves, because the right can’t seem to manage it.)

    So Seeds of Mistrust raised some issues with a Labour government. There was no smoking gun. To the extent that the criticisms were valid, Labour paid an electoral price. This is as it should be. Compare and contrast with The Hollow Men. The public outcry at the corrupt behaviour of the National Party front bench in the 2005 election campaign cost them their leader. This too is as it should be.

    And now Hager is back in the game for 08. Who knows what he has this time. Looks like stuff on National. Maybe later it will be Labour again, or if not this time, in 2011, or 2014, or whatever. Point is, facts are facts. They can’t be ignored just because we don’t like them. If Hager has facts, you should listen.
47. Anita 47

    7 July 2008 at 4:44 pm

    From the SST on Sunday page 4, headline Key’s election-advice invoices undermine attacks on Labour

    National Party leader John Key appears to be using taxpayers’ money to pay for his controversial Australian strategy advisers, Crosby/Textor”. …

    …

    When Crosby/Textor worked in National’s 2005 election campaign … its invoices arrived at National Party headquarters … . However Crosby/Textor’s work for National in 2007-2008 has instead been paid through Key’s parliamentary office. This strongly suggests they are being charged to the leader’s budget and paid with Parliamentary Services money.

    Does anyone know the current fair use rules? The article isn’t online so, while I’m happy to retype it so it’s available on-line, I’m not sure how The Standard would feel about it.

    It’s interesting though and covers off the use of public money by the Nats and their campaign database.
48. bill brown 48

    7 July 2008 at 4:48 pm

    I’m happy to retype it

    Nah, let Dilip buy his own copy.
49. Anita 49

    7 July 2008 at 4:51 pm

    bb,

    He can’t, yesterday’s SST is no longer on sale 🙂 Which is part of why I would feel very little guilt.
50. Lew 50

    7 July 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Anita: A complete reproduction would only be permissible under Fair Dealing provisions provided it (the complete reproduction) was necessary for `criticism, review or news reporting’:

    (From the Copyright Act 1994):
    42. Criticism, review, and news reporting—(1) Fair dealing
    with a work for the purposes of criticism or review, of that or
    another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe
    copyright in the work if such fair dealing is accompanied by a
    sufficient acknowledgement.

    As to whether it is, well, that depends on your eventual comment on the article 🙂

    L
51. Anita 51

    7 July 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Lew,

    Well it’s damned hard for anyone to criticise, review or discuss as news something which is unavailable… . Is that enough justification?

    Would putting a PDF on the net and linking to it be better or worse than retyping? (Other than for me, obviously retyping is not better for me 🙂
52. Lew 52

    7 July 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Anita: Yes, my non-lawyer brain thinks it is – particularly when the point is in dispute.

    I don’t see any reason why the format would make a difference as the medium remains the same.

    L
53. Anita 53

    7 July 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Lew,

    I’ve emailed it to the Standard in the hope they’ll put it somewhere handy. Otherwise I’ll think of something this evening.
54. NX 54

    7 July 2008 at 6:02 pm

    I have a PM. Human, fallible, hardworking and admirable.

    But Don Brash isn’t the PM… 😉

    In terms of policy I am more Green than Labour

    I reckon the policy gap between Labour & the Greens is actually wider than between Labour & National. So in a sense I’m actually closer to Labour than you are.
    I had a quick read of some the green policies the other day. The Greens advocate serious compulsion to achieve their policy objectives (honorable or not) – stuff the Labour party wouldn’t touch with a 20 foot barge poll.
    I agree with many of Labour’s policies on social issues but not their implementation. E.g. Sue Bradford’s handling of the anti-smacking debate just rubbed people up the wrong way.

    My main bear bug with Labour is their handling of the economy – too much tax churning and too much focus on growing the state.
    Cullen has actually done some quite right-wing things…. he hasn’t fiddled with the reserve bank act or monetary fundamentals. Kiwisaver is pretty much private, and he’s finally offering $10 billion tax cuts. Labour also initiated some PPPs (public private partnerships).
55. Felix 55

    8 July 2008 at 10:00 am

    NX, if you intend to continue with this line of reasoning you should probably state which National party policies you support.
56. NX 56

    8 July 2008 at 11:17 am

    I like National’s:
    – broadband policy – which has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of telecommunications, free toll calls, faster downloads, video conferencing, productivity on a whole… etc.
    – PPPs in health sector
    – TVNZ policy – the charter sucks
    – more aggressive tax cutting policy
    – capping the number of bureaucrats at current levels
    – holding back on the emissions trading bill! Let the Aussies fight it out, then copy them

    ^to a lesser of great extend Labour would eventually do most of these….. the main reason why I’m voting National is for a change of style @ the top.
57. Lew 57

    8 July 2008 at 11:37 am

    NX: Congratulations, you’re the first National supporter on this site to actually be able to list more than one policy of National’s that they like.

    I’ll be happy to buy you a beer for that alone!

    L
58. NX 58

    8 July 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Heh – Pint of Speight’s new Golden Summit please ;).

    There’s also Nat’s policy on boot camps for young offenders.
    And the 10% rebate if you make voluntarily payments towards your student loan. Not to mention they’re keeping the interest free student loans, MK I WFF and Kiwisaver.

    ^how it is all integrated with Tax cuts remains to be seen, so I didn’t list them.

    ^and that’s just off the top of my head – I read the news.
59. dave 59

    8 July 2008 at 1:58 pm

    [Dave, you know better than to think you can come on here and behave like that. As someone who purports to be a journalist I’d have thought you would know better than to take Farrar/Whale’s ‘research’ at face value.]

    [lprent: research? hmmmph… They’d have gotten laughed out of my uni science classes as idiots. I just had a look at it and it is pathetic. I suppose Whale has never bothered to look at our About.]
60. NX 60

    8 July 2008 at 3:16 pm

    ^why did you moderate Dave’s comment? Was he referring to DPF’s allegation that The Standard is stacked with Beehive staffers?

    Colin Espiner from Stuff has also made a similar claim.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS