You can’t make this stuff up

95 comments on “You can’t make this stuff up ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianupnorth 1

   12 June 2011 at 10:26 am

   And half of the National party executive are on the boards of Chinese banks, overseas mining companies and Asian train builders – they mustn’t have been to any meetings though. I’d suggest that is a bigger issue than a foreign visitor.
   Lest we forget the ifluence of the whacky Exclusive Brethren – who have updated their premises in Rotorua!!
   • vto 1.1

     12 June 2011 at 10:56 am

     Very good point.

     Somebody should list all directorships and ownership stakes held by National Party people so that the people of New Zealand can see where their interests lie.

     Included in this should be past National Party people such as Wyatt Creech and Jenny Shipley.

     Of course it should apply to all parties but I suspect very strongly that the National party will be the most conflicted.

     Sunlight baby sunlight. The best disinfectant.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 11:08 am

       /agreed
     • burt 1.1.2

       12 June 2011 at 11:17 am

       So if it effects all parties what do we do ?

       Option 1: Say all parties were doing it and that makes it OK so retrospectively validate.
       Option 2: Have a thorougher inquiry and lay charges where the law has been broken.

       Option 1, based on past experience, is Labour’s choice – what do you think should happen this time?
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1

         12 June 2011 at 12:42 pm

         I see burt’s still an idiot and is still wrong on something that he’s had explained to him several dozen times.

         1.) The AG changed the interpretation of the rules
         2.) If the government had ignored the AG there would have been a constitutional crisis and if they had allowed charges to be pressed there would have been a constitutional crisis. That’s what happens when the highest bar 1 in the legal system reinterprets the rules from all previous interpretations.

         The government had no choice but to retrospectively validate.

         This is somewhat different. Finding people guilty of actively engaging in conflicts of interest to make themselves better off at everyone else’s expense won’t cause a constitutional crisis.
         • U 4 United 1.1.2.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 1:04 pm

           Bernard Darnton’s interpretation would be vastly different to yours.
         • burt 1.1.2.1.2

           12 June 2011 at 1:10 pm

           Lets fisk Draco again…

           1.) The AG changed the interpretation of the rules

           Wrong… David Henry sent a written warning to the Labour party prior to the election explaining that the pledge card spending would be counted as electioneering… they ignored it.

           2.) If the government had ignored the AG there would have been a constitutional crisis and if they had allowed charges to be pressed there would have been a constitutional crisis. That’s what happens when the highest bar 1 in the legal system reinterprets the rules from all previous interpretations.

           Wrong…. There was a requirement to urgently clarify the rules for parliamentary services which had noting to do with validation of money already ‘illegally’ spent by Labour. Validations typically get passed at the next budget – not under urgency.

           But carry on… love that corruption because it was in the best interest of the red team.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.2.1

             12 June 2011 at 1:25 pm

             Wrong… David Henry sent a written warning to the Labour party prior to the election explaining that the pledge card spending would be counted as electioneering… they ignored it.

             Which changed the rules because it hadn’t been counted previously.

             There was a requirement to urgently clarify the rules for parliamentary services which had noting to do with validation of money already ‘illegally’ spent by Labour.

             The sudden change in interpretation of the rules invalidated the entire previous 14 years of government as every party (including the party that wrote the fucken rule) had spent the money in the ways the AG decided was electioneering. Every law passed for the previous 14 years, every precedent set by those laws would have been wiped from the books. Mere clarification wouldn’t have changed that.

             And ignoring the AGs ruling would have been worse.
             • burt …

               12 June 2011 at 1:31 pm

               Draco…

               What part of being warned by a senior govt official that your actions would be considered a breach of the law allows you to ignore that warning then claim the rules changed ?

               Look, the tolerance over the speed limit has changed over the years and we are advised when that happens. Good luck trying to pretend the warnings were irrelevant when you claim that 20 years ago the threshold was 10kph so it’s not fair to be punished under a 4kph threshold today.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 12 June 2011 at 2:08 pm

                 The fact that the warning was vague and so the only option you really had was to go on was what hadn’t been previously ruled out.
                 • burt …

                   12 June 2011 at 2:45 pm

                   Vague…. The letter from the Chief Electoral Officer (David Henry) saying that the pledge card spending would be treating as electioneering was vague… Apologist much ?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     12 June 2011 at 2:47 pm

                     These Right Wingers are desperate; with no forward vision all they can fall back on now is picking over ancient history.
                   • burt …

                     12 June 2011 at 2:54 pm

                     CV

                     In this case it’s called checking the form….
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     12 June 2011 at 8:56 pm

                     Well burt, the reports I read said that he was going to have a look after the election but didn’t specifically mention what he regarded as electioneering. I haven’t seen the actual letter so if you’ve got a copy can you share it with us?
                   • KINTO …

                     13 June 2011 at 6:48 pm

                     ah well bert, how about you get back to justifying the national party’s corruption over herceptain?
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.2.2

             12 June 2011 at 1:30 pm

             But carry on… love that corruption because it was in the best interest of the red team.

             Such a laugh. Self serving decision making against the interests of NZ on a multimillion dollar scale is what this National Government is professional at.
       • seeker 1.1.2.2

         12 June 2011 at 2:46 pm

         Burt and other burts

         Labour didn’t break any laws at the time but National did, by not paying its GST of $375000 because it ‘forgot’ I believe the reason was. This was under Don Brash and was completely forgotten as all other parties were accused of something ‘”retrospective.”‘,whereas National had actally broken the law to the tune of a very large sum- $375,000 as reported for a short while.

         Amazing what happens to cover or deflect any wrongdoing, and real wrongdoing, by National.
         MSM are great on manufacturing juicy beatups on Labour (as main opposition to National), but minimise any really serious mistakes, volitional or otherwise, by National. I hope they sleep easily at night,’cos I think their eternal sleep ain’t going to be too comfortable. Likewise Nact and Phil O’Reilly et al.
         • herodotus 1.1.2.2.1

           12 June 2011 at 4:46 pm

           Seeker- some helpful advice. You cannot not pay the GST on a bill. You can under pay the bill by 12.5%. there is a huge technical difference.
           If Nat under paid (TVNZ-I think were the other party) then when receipted the payment did not include the GST then they are also breaking the law. What IMO would have happened was a short payment being made, the GST on the payment was recognised, then an amount ($375k) would have been writen off and the GST content on this amount would have been adjusted. There is no way that the GST on the payment was not paid To me why did not TVNZ chase up the shortfall is a more telling questions.
           • RedLogix 1.1.2.2.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 4:57 pm

             Either the govt was short GST, or TVNZ (an SOE remember) was underpaid right? But either way National got to pay $375k less than they should have and the public purse was short-changed.

             If you think that’s all okey-dokey then just say so.
             • Herodotus …

               12 June 2011 at 6:45 pm

               RL I never said it was ok. The behaviour of both makes us appear as a banana rep. There should have been greater repercussions on both parties. For me their behaviour mirrors the directors who profited from finance coys and suffered no reprecussions.
               So pollys create laws that we have to follow, but they can do what they like. And what reaction do we get from many bloggers? Defending “our” team, when both teams actions are undefendable. RL do not let your “faith” allow those that you follow/support diminish the standards you expect to be held- there are some here who for me are falling into this trap !!!!
               http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX8szNPgrEs
               • RedLogix …

                 12 June 2011 at 7:07 pm

                 There should have been greater repercussions on both parties.

                 Well I’m pleased you accept that both parties were in the wrong.

                 Well yes. Labour got hounded by the Opposition and media for months. The whole affair took centre-stage and Brash could barely bring himself to speak about anything else. And when the matter was confirmed to Labour’s (and the other six parties involved) satisfaction they repaid the monies they agreed they owed.

                 By contrast National’s GST matter was kept very low profile, barely mentioned and never repaid.

                 Lucky old National eh?
                 • Herodotus …

                   12 June 2011 at 7:18 pm

                   So the entire election was a fraud, and the results should not have stood. So the parties that gained the most were the worst offenders. No wonder we have so many lawyers in NZ to tell us what we all know to be wrong …. isn’t 🙁
                   There is a scene in Lord of War when the leader of Liberia (I think) informs Nicolas Cage re the condemenation of his elections by the rest of the world and cross references this with the Bush-Gore election and of the different perceptions . Are we any better? And how do you put a halt to the decay of decency that follows? For one accepting that “our” team is a contributor to this.
                 • Anita …

                   12 June 2011 at 7:18 pm

                   Actually I thought that National made a charitable donation to offset the GST debt: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481938

                   That doesn’t offset the advantage they gained, but does mean saying it was never repaid is not accurate.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     12 June 2011 at 7:22 pm

                     In this instance National effectively got more advertising for its buck than allowed for under the electoral act.

                     Further, I fail to see how donating money to Joe when my debt is to Billy absolves me of my debt to Billy.
                   • Herodotus …

                     12 June 2011 at 7:33 pm

                     “In this instance National effectively got more advertising for its buck than allowed for under the electoral act.” by $375k and Lab received $900k , NZ1 and United Future $150+ so. What is the point. If one does it then it is acceptable for othersm, then we get into the fruitless agruement of chickens and eggs, all diversions to protect “our”team. No all it does is undermine our values and standards we supposedly uphold and apply to the “other” team.
                     No wonder we are in the crap we are in, and what is worse that many justify it as acceptable. So what happened with Finance coys are ok as long as you are not found criminally guilty?
                   • Anita …

                     12 June 2011 at 7:41 pm

                     I agree with your first point, and as I said “[t]hat doesn’t offset the advantage they gained”.

                     As to your second point, my somewhat fuzzy memory is that it goes like this:
                     1) National books a bunch of electoral advertising and incurs a debt of $y.
                     2) $y is $y/9 higher than they are permitted, by law, to pay for electoral advertising (i.e. higher by the GST amount).
                     3) They pay their creditors $8y/9 (that is the maximum they are allowed by law to pay).
                     4) There is much confusion about how to find their way through the legal maze, as it would be illegal for them to pay it (electoral law), it would be breach of contract for them to not pay it (contract law). There is the additional confusion that one (?) of the creditor is a crown entity, adding PFA and other concerns.
                     5) They reach an agreement with the creditors – National will donate $y/9 to charity and the creditors will forgive the debt.

                     This ties up the legal loose ends about as tidily as anyone could manage. The piece that always confused me was how the $y/9 of forgiven debt was accounted for under electoral law – surely it was a donation, but when? and was it counted as electoral spend (as a donated service)?

                     Of course it still means that National got $y/9 more advertising that it was permitted to purchase.
     • The Baron 1.1.3

       13 June 2011 at 3:15 am

       “somebody” does – it’s called the register of pecuniary interests, and every MP is in it.
       It was set up for exactly this reason, and is already publicly available.
2. ianmac 2

   12 June 2011 at 10:50 am

   Funny how the Herald gives Whaleoil space when other more important issues are neglected. Hard to imagine any thing of interest from leaked stuff. I mean Committee business is usually pretty boring. As National have shown the dodgy stuff is not recorded.
   • burt 2.1

     12 June 2011 at 11:20 am

     I think corruption in politics is reasonably high priority stuff. Would you prefer some pictures of mushrooms growing in a field or something ?
     • ianmac 2.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 12:46 pm

       Corruption? Huh? What corruption is that then? Surely not making use of the Parliamentary Services.
       “The minute stated the “Labour North” collective should “use Parliamentary Services for best outcome of LP (Labour Party)”. So what? I am certain that every Party would do this!
       Connected to:
       “Parliamentary Services rules strictly forbid the use of services for campaigning purposes.” Ok. So what. Who says that they are?
       What rubbish you talk burt.
       • burt 2.1.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 1:16 pm

         Lets assess how much rubbish I talk vs how much of an apologist you are once more information starts to get into the public domain.

         If it comes out that the whale is just blowing out his blow hole then I’ll apologise for calling you an apologist – will you concede you are acting like an apologist if the whale trumps up some damming details ?
         • ianmac 2.1.1.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 2:13 pm

           So the information that is so far published is not that significant after all? That is what you wrote about rather than the anticipation of things to come.
3. LOLWUT 3

   12 June 2011 at 11:13 am

   If Crosby Textor actually did half the things that you leftards fantasise that they do, they’d all be retired to private islands a long time ago.
   • burt 3.1

     12 June 2011 at 11:30 am

     Ssssh, let the defenders of corruption front foot their way into revealing the weak points in their defense.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 1:07 pm

       The only defenders of corruption are the RWNJs
       • burt 3.1.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 1:16 pm

         Ha ha ha…. you must have a memory shorter than a goldfish.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 1:21 pm

           So I hear the Wongs helped score tens of millions of dollars worth of NZ Rail contracts for the Chinese? And subsequently put NZ workers out of jobs?
           • burt 3.1.1.1.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 1:23 pm

             They did it too…. Oh CV, I didn’t know you were a pre pubescent child caught with your fingers in the cookie jar.
             • Colonial Viper …

               12 June 2011 at 1:26 pm

               I didn’t know you were a pre pubescent child caught with your fingers in

               And I didn’t know you had a fascination with pre pubescent children.

               But it figures.
   • felix 3.2

     12 June 2011 at 12:34 pm

     If Crosby Textor actually did half the things that you leftards fantasise that they do, they’d be very wealthy men with quite a lot of influence in right-wing politics around the Commonwealth.

     FIFY.
     • Gus 3.2.1

       12 June 2011 at 12:54 pm

       Common Felix, we all know that Crosby Textor is actually part of the Illuminati who provide their services to the National Party only because it fits in with their global conspiracy of manipulating the worlds population to ignore the effects of peak oil and climate change in order to be able to successfully implement a one world government which will be controlled by Corporations vs elected officials.
       • chris73 3.2.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 1:02 pm

         Any leftie that reads that will blow a load in their pants…
       • felix 3.2.1.2

         12 June 2011 at 1:23 pm

         You guys are weird. Sorry for interrupting your fantasy.
         • Inventory2 3.2.1.2.1

           12 June 2011 at 4:19 pm

           There are just three words to counteract all this Crosby-Textor-under-the-bed crap

           Blue State Digital
           • IrishBill 3.2.1.2.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 4:24 pm

             Blue State provide a (in my opinion, overpriced) content management and internet campaigning system. If labour are using it they’ve basically brought a software package.

             Could you explain how that equates to hiring CT?
   • Colonial Viper 3.3

     12 June 2011 at 1:05 pm

     LOLWUT is a moron, these people are after POLITICAL POWER not just money.

     The sojourns to the pacific islands are just for family holidays.
   • Deadly_NZ 3.4

     12 June 2011 at 3:40 pm

     Oh then how about this for a bit more corruption then.

     http://uncensored.co.nz/2011/06/03/what-is-going-on-in-christchurch-the-real-story/
4. burt 4

   12 June 2011 at 11:14 am

   rOb

   The tip of the iceberg is showing. I suspect you are going off half cocked trying to defend the indefensible but then again you have defended theft of tax payers money and unconstitutional use of parliamentary powers before; so jump right in rOb. Dig yourself a nice deep hole early….

   Labour rorting the system for their own gain…. who would have picked it!
   • RedLogix 4.1

     12 June 2011 at 11:31 am

     You really have just descended into parody of yourself burt.
     • burt 4.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 11:57 am

       I’ve always been a parody of myself…. you only just noticed ?
   • r0b 4.2

     12 June 2011 at 11:33 am

     Good old burt, you can set your watch by him.

     So what indefensible have I defended here burt?  The right of a mate from OZ to sit in on a meeting?  Well shit – how long do you reckon I should be locked up for that?
     • burt 4.2.1

       12 June 2011 at 12:06 pm

       rOb

       Where do I start. I think your focus on the fact there was a person from Aussie at the meeting is a very weak attempt to deflect the underlying implications from the Herald article and the pending revelations from the big-blubbery-sea-mammal.

       What have you defended that was indefensible… Oh rOb… here we go again. Go on tell me how normal it is for a retrospective act of parliament to validate 14 years of alleged misuse of public money… go on tell me how National once validated $50m so the $800,000 in the best interest of keeping Helen out of court was noting to see.
       • r0b 4.2.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 12:18 pm

         Oh rOb… here we go again

         No burt, there you go again.  Have a nice trip!
         • U 4 United 4.2.1.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 1:07 pm

           [Deleted. Unsubstantiated smear and innuendo….RL]
     • burt 4.2.2

       12 June 2011 at 12:35 pm

       The right of a mate from OZ to sit in on a meeting?

       Have you got your “NO” sign ready ?
       • r0b 4.2.2.1

         12 June 2011 at 12:55 pm

         Why would I need it burt? You still haven’t said what’s wrong with having someone from Oz in a meeting, or giving advice. What’s the crime here? Please do explain!
         • burt 4.2.2.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 1:22 pm

           The fact that you are urgently front footing the smallest part of the story that was leaked into the public domain to start the buzz tells me there is trouble lurking.

           I guess we find out in the fullness of time why you jumped on the visitor angle trying to make that the key plank of a story when it’s just the media teaser.
           • r0b 4.2.2.1.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 2:04 pm

             So in other words, you told me I’d need a No sign at the ready over a mate from Oz attending a Labour Party meeting (your choice of quote, not mine, at 4.2.2), but you still can’t tell me what’s wrong with it. 

             Kind of a stupid “media teaser” then isn’t it. 

             Did you know burt – that Labour regularly has visitors from Oz address their whole ANNUAL CONFERENCE!  The horror!  The HORROR!!
5. ZeeBop 5

   12 June 2011 at 11:22 am

   If there is another crash! Its patently obvious there will be.

   Rob peter to pay paul! If we continue to use up scarce petroleum
   and all we do is ‘add ethanol’ to petrol, ethanol produced by using
   more petroleum to grow more crops to turn into energy!

   Then we will continue to have world governments think they
   have solved the crisis behind the crash, and so lead inevitably
   to a second crash….

   We need to stop wasting precious resources on taking little
   bobby to school in the four wheeled drive monster because
   its raining and the school is on the other side of town.

   We create grid lock so we can make money unmaking
   grid lock slightly. Our computers are heavily restricted
   in what they could achieve when we need them to be
   able to move work from commercial sprawl to urban
   sprawl (and then upgrade urban sprawl to mixed housing
   and light commercial).

   We live in an age of stupid. Where the stupid people use
   what little intelligence they do have keeping the same
   dogma going.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     12 June 2011 at 1:14 pm

     We need to stop wasting precious resources on taking little bobby to school in the four wheeled drive monster because its raining and the school is on the other side of town.

     Raining? What’s rain got to do with it? I live next to a school and from 14:30 through to about 15:15 on school days it’s damn near impossible to get the car out of the driveway.
6. chris73 6

   12 June 2011 at 11:34 am

   Once again Labour starts to make traction and yet again someone decides to shoot themselves in the foot
   • Eddie 6.1

     12 June 2011 at 11:44 am

     one email with Aaron Gilmore accidentally copied in, who gave it to Whaleoil.

     And a breach of the Labour Party website by that same sickness beneficiary.
     • chris73 6.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 11:52 am

       Ok all joking aside, don’t you think that the amount of times Labours been sabotaging themselves is just more then a little coincidental?

       In no particular order and off the top of my head we have:

       Chris Carters implosion
       Darren Hughes up to late night frightfullness
       Damien O’Connor telling the truth (from his pov)
       Phil Goffs new hair (ok that one is a joke)
       Trevor Mallards public challenge
       These latest revelations

       Do Labour want to win the next election under Phil Goff?
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 1:11 pm

         Meh all the usual excitement in politics, up to and including the Joyce orchestrated backstabbing of so-called coalition ally Rodney Hide and the corporate takeover of his party by the National Party Undead.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   12 June 2011 at 11:47 am

   While people are all excited about ZOMG kKKORUPTION!!!1!

   Look what I/S found

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/618982

   That’s the current PM promising money to Parents Inc at a Family First vote pandering session back in 08. And whaddya know, who got a truck full of cash in a non tendered brown envelope?

   Obviously no one could support any party who supported such a government. ACT will move to the cross benches over this for sure. Election in 6 weeks I guess.
   • burt 7.1

     12 June 2011 at 12:11 pm

     Pascal’s bookie

     Sadly I think the “Labour precedent” will be used. National will say others were doing it and that the laws they passed themselves were too confusing for them to be held accountable under.

     All the lovers of corruption will then jump to their defense saying it’s not fair that when others were doing it that only National are charged. Enough time will pass for the statute of limitation on political donations to pass then we will be told that because they were not charged they are exonerated.

     Just like 2006-2007… your team must be excited that you get to play 5 year olds pointing and shouting “they did it too” again before we all move on.
     • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 12:22 pm

       That makes even less sense than LOLWUTs pathetic effort below.
8. LOLWUT 8

   12 June 2011 at 12:12 pm

   Pascal you appear to be protesting the elimination of a department of pointless middlemen. Won’t someone please think of the beaurocrats!
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     12 June 2011 at 1:37 pm

     Less public sector power = more corporate power.

     Exactly what National want for their private sector mates.
9. Bill 9

   12 June 2011 at 1:03 pm

   Why isn’t the Labour Party overtly subject to foreign influences? And I mean beyond the narrow parameters on offer from other nation’s Labour or Labor Parties. Anyone remember internationalism?

   Labour should be fostering communication across a broad spectrum of leftist interests, both domestic and foreign – and shouting from the rooftops about the genuinely progressive ideas they have found and adopted.

   But then, nah. Labour should continue to be an organisation that disavows its roots and concentrates on the sole issue of securing power for its ensconced careerists.
   • Eddie 9.1

     12 June 2011 at 1:24 pm

     Labour parties around the world talk to each other, of course they do. And activists go to other countries to watch their campaigns in action to learn for back home.

     There’s nothing wrong with that, no foreign direction of our Labour Party.
10. Colonial Viper 10

    12 June 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Expect more underhanded Right Wing dirty tricks as the year goes on. This scum gets desperate, they’ll get nastier.

    The National Party’s proxy goons have been greenlit.
11. infused 11

    12 June 2011 at 1:09 pm

    I’m looking forward to tomorrow as well.
    • Eddie 11.1

      12 June 2011 at 1:25 pm

      it’s just a list of people who have made online donations to Labour this year that Slater stole.

      guy’s pretty active for a sickness beneficiary, eh?
      • ianmac 11.1.1

        12 June 2011 at 2:18 pm

        I received a newsletter warning that names of donors may be revealed. I don’t care. After all it can’t top the public knowledge of the names of lots of donors. Expose: Did you know that Don Brash and Banks have donated money to ACT? Shock. Horror!
        • Anne 11.1.1.1

          12 June 2011 at 7:49 pm

          And did you know Brash and Banks also donated to the National Party? I can’t believe it. It’s horrendous. There’s gotta be an official investigation. It’s corruption of the worst kind.
12. deemac 12

    12 June 2011 at 1:50 pm

    all this rubbish just reinforces my view that the Nats will be using more dirty smear tactics to divert attention away from the undeniable fact that their policies are not popular and so must not become the subject of the election campaign.
    Don’t mention ACC privatisation or asset sales, talk about Goff dyeing his hair!
    FFS…
13. William Joyce 13

    12 June 2011 at 1:52 pm

    What a load of sweet FA! Every party has “foreign influence”.
    They have exchanges with similar parties in other countries.
    They have speakers from similar parties in other countries.
    They take advice from people foreign and domestic.
    They attend conferences in other countries.
    And this may surprise the RWNJ’s, they even read books written by people with foreign sounding names (*shock horror*).
    This guy Fisher at the Herald is a hack short of a story. It doesn’t take much investigative skill to write an article regurgitated by the whale.
     
    Our future doesn’t look good if Fisher’s job at the Herald is one of those thousands of jobs created by the economically-innovative National government.
    Oh, that’s right. They don’t create jobs – budgets do.
    “If you write it – they will come!”
    • Gas Guzzler 13.1

      12 June 2011 at 2:25 pm

      Absolutely correct, but what you’re forgetting is that the NZ public aren’t entirely stupid and will rightly remember the blatant hypocrisy of a Labour party foaming at the mouth about boogey men and foreign interests controlling the National party… or are some people less foreign than others?
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        12 June 2011 at 2:49 pm

        Gas guzzler is a moron for not understanding the concept of solidarity between labour movements and workers across all nations.

        All the Right Wing know about is collaborations of international money men.
        • Gas Guzzler 13.1.1.1

          12 June 2011 at 3:03 pm

          So you’re saying that there’s nothing wrong with collaboration/solidarity but only workers should be allowed to do so? What happened to freedom of association for all?

          [Not needed… RL]
          • felix 13.1.1.1.1

            12 June 2011 at 3:25 pm

            “only workers should be allowed to do so”

            Who said that? Perhaps you should clarify what you mean or apologise for besmirching CV’s good name.
            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1.1

              12 June 2011 at 6:46 pm

              🙂
      • William Joyce 13.1.2

        12 June 2011 at 6:45 pm

        You may be right  – if Labour opposed National’s overseas contacts because they were foreign. They should have opposed the use of US political advisers on the basis that we, as a nation, can do without importing the vial, unethical, blind hatred, politics that characterise the foam-at-the-mouth Republican campaign staff.
        We have enough problems with our own feral RWNJs.
        • Dan 13.1.2.1

          12 June 2011 at 7:07 pm

          Exactly, WJ. It’s all a question of accent and emphasis and to my mind Labour got fixated on pushing the whole xenophobic line thus they’re open to the same criticism here. Nationality shouldn’t come into it, good and bad ideas should be attacked/supported on the basis of their content not their geo-political origin.
          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2.1.1

            12 June 2011 at 9:12 pm

            The exchange of ideas isn’t a problem. Our political parties being supported by funds from foreigners is.
14. seeker 14

    12 June 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Michael “Lord “Haw Haw” Ashcroft was a definite “foreign” ( in my terminology, alien,) influence on John Key when he paid him a visit just before the last election.
    The visit took place in John’s own palatial home and I am sure it involved a pleasant book club review of that best selling right wing guide – “Smell the Coffee- a wake up call for the Conservative party. ”
    Where would we all be without dear old Haw Haw eh Whaleoil, me ol’ without a hearty?
    • William Joyce 14.1

      12 June 2011 at 6:57 pm

      Yeah, and Key visited his personal friend David Cameron (on the Taxpayers dollar). What did they talk about over the fucking pheasant – as they picked the bones of the poor out of their teeth?
      How to cut back the public/civil service? How to knee cap those idealistic students by ensnaring them in that ol’ finance industry weapon of debt (before they flex their muscles and force any social change)?
      Do we class that as foreign influence?
15. ianupnorth 15

    12 June 2011 at 3:53 pm

    Burt, whilst we’re on corruption, Richard Worth’s official trip to India to promote his aviation business was just one example of what has been going on; it’s up their with Hone’s day trip to Paris – all on the coalition governments watch; remember, they wanted to play with Rodney on his crusade of nail the abusers of government travel and destroy problematic councils by merging them – both have came back to bite them royally in the rump. Shame the NZ public has such a short memory!
    • Blue 15.1

      12 June 2011 at 5:15 pm

      Terrible memory inupnorth, Worth (A national MP was rightly given the arse by national), Hone (a left wing nut job and NOT a national MP) was allowed to retain his ever increasing snout in the public purse, because Doris hadn’t seen the sights yet. There lies the difference.
      • Pascal's bookie 15.1.1

        12 June 2011 at 6:42 pm

        The PM was entirely comfortable with Worth’s Indian trip Blue. There were no consequences whatsoever. It’s one of the things we know that Worth wasn’t sacked for.
16. Vicky32 16

    13 June 2011 at 2:27 am

    Testing…
    • Vicky32 16.1

      13 June 2011 at 2:30 am

      I couldn’t get the Standard to work at all earlier! Needles to say had I known it was going to work, I’d have made sense.. Sorry, please ignore!
17. Craig 17

    14 June 2011 at 11:04 am

    Goodness. “Foreign influence,” eh…? Therefore, what is one to make of…

    (i) UK Tory Cabinet Minister Iain Duncan Smith (Centre for “Social Justice” UK) as a Sir John Graham Lecture guest speaker at the Maxim Institute on July 22nd: http://www.maxim.org.nz

    (ii) Anti-Muslim/antigay bigot Jim Wallace as Australian Christian Lobby guest speaker at Family First’s Auckland-based “Forum on the Family” on July 8: http://www.forumonthefamily.org.nz http://www.familyfirst.org.nz (See: http://www.acl.org.au)

    (And I can promise McCoskrie and mates that I will be keeping a *very* close eye on electoral finance requirements to see whether overseas religious conservative fanatics breach our own limits on donations, or provide tactical and strategic advice. Who gave the likes of Wallace the right to interfere in our domestic politics, especially given the Exclusive Brethren debacle in 2005?)

    Looks like overseas influence to me. What about the rest of you?
18. randal 18

    14 June 2011 at 12:42 pm

    the nats have been trasmogrified into s shrill strident mouth version of the tea party. i.e. a gang of loud mouthed idiots who yell and shout and dont know what the truth is.
    their turn is coming. exactly the same criminal tactics used by the nazis to silence the reichstag.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS