Comments on: Cash for Honours

By: clintheine

clintheine — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:08:16 +0000

A typical lazy left wing response from the left… if the right honours anybody it MUST because of money.. which is obviously evil. But if the left get the money, either from Owen or more likely stolen from every single Kiwi, the it must be good and ok.

Last time I saw, Bolger, Fay and Mckinnen were honoured by Labout and in Bolgers and McKinnens cases they were rewarded with cushy jobs by Labour too…. thanks to the generosity of the taxpayers that Labour like to screw over every day.

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:12:15 +0000

“gutter” – rather ironic coming from you Russell . Who the hell do you think you are !!

By: Russell Brown

Russell Brown — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:09:03 +0000

TR – Michael Fay was honoured by the then National regime.

[DPF: Bzzt wrong. His 1990 knighthood was processed by the Labour Government]

Let’s try Selwyn Cushing, then, knighted in 1999, I think. He was not only a National Party donor, but a party fundraiser. I don’t recall the same mean-spirited, defamatory accusations then. There are quite a few other examples.

One of the things New Zealand universities lack in comparison to those in the US is the generosity of alumni — this not only deprives of of funds, it robs them of independence. Glenn has now made two major donations to Auckland University (he gave the university’s Leigh Marine Research Laboratory $500,000 in 2003) and has committed himself to future support for a chair in logistics. And he didn’t even bloody go to university.

Judging by this morning’s editorial, the Herald seems to be having second thoughts about its choice of lead story yesterday. Some of the rest of you might also wish to pick yourselves up out of the gutter.

[DPF: I am not going to do tit for tat but Cushing lives in NZ, and over several decades has contributed to both NZ business and various good causes. Also he deserved a gong simply for sucessfully suing Winston for libel

If Labour had not bent over backwards to change the law to protect Glenn as a donor, then I doubt there would be so much fuss over his honour. But the timing stinks]

By: Tamaki Resident

Tamaki Resident — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:21:35 +0000

if that’s what you think petermcc, then you have no idea about how Universities are funded.

By: peteremcc

peteremcc — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:40:48 +0000

But the 7.5 million to the UoA is essentially a donation to Labour too because now they have an extra 7.5 million to bribe us with at the next election!

By: Policy Parrot

Policy Parrot — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:30:08 +0000

TR – Michael Fay was honoured by the then National regime.

[DPF: Bzzt wrong. His 1990 knighthood was processed by the Labour Government]

By: Tamaki Resident

Tamaki Resident — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:36:23 +0000

IP – You miss the point – we don’t know who the National Party donors are!!!
(I was also out of the country for most of the nineties, so I don’t know who got the honours under National)

By: Insolent Prick

Insolent Prick — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:29:29 +0000

TR,

You can’t point to a single major National Party donor who was awarded a gong after donating to the National Party, despite not living in New Zealand for forty years. Both parties aren’t the same as each other. Labour clearly feels this is the last chance to award its biggest donor before it gets pinged at the next election. That is a scandal, by any measure.

By: Tamaki Resident

Tamaki Resident — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:20:33 +0000

and vote for no-one?!

By: ZenTiger

ZenTiger — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:47:01 +0000

I think that both parties are as bad as each other, so no one has the right to try and take the moral high ground on this issue.

Except maybe the voters?

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:40:56 +0000

So Tamaki Resident, if what you say is true, then it just makes it all the better for a new political party that is not tainted by such deception and corruption ?

Roll on 2008 !!

By: Tamaki Resident

Tamaki Resident — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:10:57 +0000

No Burt, I have not said that it is ok – I said that it looked stupid (in my first post). I think that both parties are as bad as each other, so no one has the right to try and take the moral high ground on this issue.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:50:39 +0000

And being a rich prick capitalist is OK as long as you do it outside NZ and donate large sums of money to Labour?

By: burt

burt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:40:37 +0000

John Dalley

So large donations from foreign interests are OK and justify being slapped onto the honours list?

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:29:39 +0000

So John Dalley, this Owen Glenn has a set of rich prick balls?

Take it away lefty turd tossers .

By: John Dalley

John Dalley — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:55:23 +0000

Chuck Bird. Dipshit. Why don’t you check Davids links before you come up with false speculations and you will see that in 2004 Owen Glenn donated to Labour $199.960.00 and in 2005 $300.00.00 so unless you can prove your allegation, you need to pull your head in.
Looking through the list, i missed your name Chucky babe, may be you donated to National through one of their front trusts, or may be you have not done anything successful enough to make such a donation.
At least Owen Glenn had enough balls to put his name to the amout and not hide behind secret trusts.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:22:00 +0000

This used to be called corruption. But the scary thing is that this government is so baltantly in our faces that there are onbly two conclusions – they either think they’re bulletproof or they are bulletproof! I really hope its the former.

By: radvad

radvad — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:11:35 +0000

Not only was it cash for honours, it was also cash for policy for personal enrichment.

At the time of the first installment he said he gave it to Labour because they supported free trade with China, something Glen would make a lot of money out of. Gnats also had such a policy but were not in a position to enact it and Labour would be more likely to bail under pressure from the Greens.

The implication was clear, abandon this policy and the next installment will not be forthcoming

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:56:55 +0000

Tamaki Resident

Speculation is just that. Labour have been very open about the donations from Owen Glenn. The same cannot be said about the National Party big donors. Perhaps the discussion re National should not be about cash for honours, but rather cash for policies.

As I understand Owen Glen donated to Labour before 2005. They did not disclose he or one individual made such a large donation. Someone found out about it. I do not call that being open.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:48:58 +0000

Adolf – my examples clearly weren’t intended as examples of anything bad. You asked a question – which wasn’t quite specific enough – and I answered it. You also mentioned the time-period of the last 15 years. If you actually meant the last 15 years of National’s hold of the Treasury benches you have to go back to early Muldoon… before my time, I’m afraid.