Starship gives money back to NZ First
December 14th, 2007 at 11:28 pm by David FarrarOh this has become a PR disaster for NZ First. Starship Hospital has now rejected their $158,000 donation:
“It’s most unfortunate that the money wasn’t given in the spirit of genuine philanthropy, but rather it appears to gain political capital and media leverage,” he said.
“We have decided it’s in the best interest of the Starship Foundation and the sick children of New Zealand to return the money to NZ First.”
This is an absolute humiliation.
Related posts:
- More on Starship donation returned
- Herald calls on Starship to give the money back
- Raybon Kan on NZ First
- NZ First paying back the money – but to Star Ship
December 14th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Hi all
Indeed an own goal from Winston First.
Regards
Vote:Peter Bickle
December 14th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Congrats Starship!!! I donate to only 3 charities a year, every day there are beggers on the street that make me feel bad for saying no to them. I am going to change my charity from here on, and gift my money to Starship and only one other. Winnie can go suck really really really old ladies titties from here on. Only 11 months more of him sucking off ours.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
“We have decided it’s in the best interest of the Starship Foundation and the sick children of New Zealand to return the money to NZ First.”
I don’t see how it’s in their best interests. They should have kept the money.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Well done, Starship.
However they shouldn’t be out of pocket for being ethical. How about we all head over and donate a little. If enough people do it it’ll become a lot, and the message being sent to Winston will be deafening.
Will take 30 seconds, and is a good cause (it’s not like the Government’s going to give them enough money to get by – they’re only a hospital).
http://www.starship.org.nz/donation
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Please Please Please Ron Mark we need you in parliament, please role these gobblers or get out and form a real party.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Kevin – yes ! Well said.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Kevin, I’d almost think about giving Marks a vote if he rolled Mr. Baubles.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
He is a voice of reason. He surely can’t support this government, it makes no sense.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Good to see someone making a stand against this ploy, anyone else who is offered this donation (or part off) will hopefully think twice
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:01 am
““We have decided it’s in the best interest of the Starship Foundation and the sick children of New Zealand to return the money to NZ First.”
Can anyone explain why it is the best interests of sick children that the money is returned?
For example if Bill English, who misappropriate 500 000 dollars in 2002 to pay for a pledge card, donates to the Starship, should they also return that?
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Still I am surprised that DPF hasnt commented on the glaring irony of this:
Vote:” an investigation by the Auditor-General found that golden handshake payments to Mr Mogridge and fellow board member Michael Wall were “unlawful.”"
December 15th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Well done, Starship… you did the right thing.
Brickbats to Winston First. Your latest publicity stunt indicates your total arrogance for taxpayers’ money. You do not deserve to still be in parliament.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:08 am
NPOG
You are yet again attempting to defend the indefensible and to confuse the issue!
Why do you bother?
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:14 am
NPOG – This is the local rugby team you are supporting, this is the government of NZ who are responsible for spending over $50billion of our money each year – how can you defend this arrogance
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:15 am
should read “This is not the local rugby team…”
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:26 am
“Can anyone explain why it is the best interests of sick children that the money is returned?”
It would only need explaining to a leftist. People with morals understand the simple point- “honesty is always the best policy”. The Children’s Hospital refused to be part of such a shameful act of duplicity. It would have been damaging to their public image to have gone along with NZ First’s cynical propaganda exercise, and possibly reduced future donations. Get it now NPOG, or is the black and white of it still too hard for someone who lives in the morally grey swamp that you and other socialists occupy?
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Well done Starship.
Clark, Peters etc. take note: this is what a principled stand looks like.
You may have read about principles. A principle is not a principle until it costs you money. But lack of principles can cost you much more.
Like the next election.
Michaels’ and Paul M’s comments give cause for hope that the public will reward Starship with donations at least equalling the amount they gave up.
Last night on Close Up we met that inspirational young cancer patient who decided to donate to Starship her savings for a Play Station.
Tonight some kind soul bought her a Play Station and the virtuous circle was complete.
Let’s hope the 2005 election-theft circle will be completed next year with the deserved trouncing of the supporters of the Electoral Finance Bill.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Beautifully said John.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:45 am
WEll said John Ansell
NPOG – take note, we the people will not tolerate your rubbish any longer, you and your cohorts are gone!
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:48 am
“You may have read about principles. A principle is not a principle until it costs you money. But lack of principles can cost you much more. ”
I am just confused about the principle here.
As I understand it Parliament passed legislation the retrospectively legalised Bill English and National’s misappropriation of 500 000 dollars in 2002 and NZ First’s misappropriation of 158 000 dollars in 2005.
So legally that money now belongs to both National and NZ First respectively.
NZ First wish to donate that money to Starship.
What is the principle in turning it down.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Starship: “Cheers, you midget fucker.”
Vote:Peters: ‘Can I have a tax receipt?’
SShip; ‘You sifty fucker.’ fuck off.’
December 15th, 2007 at 12:52 am
NPG – you are clearly a fuckwit
Vote:Kevin – seek help
December 15th, 2007 at 12:57 am
sorry – meant to add – mwahahahahahahahahah! fuck you winnie ron and assorted losers.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Well I for one will be giving Starship some money for shafting that turd Peters so beautifully..
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Well, the Starship Foundation is certainly getting a cut of our charitable giving budget next year – and I intend to make sure they know why. Hope every Kiwiblog reader is going to back up the well-deserved schadenfreude directed at Winston First with a nice fat donation to an entirely worthy charity that should never have been pimped for political ends in the first place.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 1:47 am
NPOG
The Auditor General did not state that 2002 expense was incorrect. Labour wrote the legislation to cover themselves and obviously made sure no retrospective action against them could take place and to confuse and OBFUSCATE and delude weak minds gave you drugs to ensure you thought it was all someone else’s fault.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Craig – dig up a bank a/c number for them. I’d like to donate anonymously – and not claim it back on my tax return…unlike the cheap fuckers who populate Winston’s personal worship troupe…
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Ignore that – just caught Paul M’s post above
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:08 am
I am also moved to donate as well. Unfortunately I don’t have a 150000 dollars. I am also concerned my moral fibre may not be good enough for them to accept my money. Here is my letter to inquire
Hello,
I wish to know what is the criteria for donating to the Starship
foundation.
For example I have considerable sums to money owing to IRD, which they call
penalties on student loan repayments. Is the Starship foundation still
willing to accept a donation from me in this situation?
I also would not like to donate to a foundation that has board members who accept money as golden handshake payments that have been deemed
illegal by the Auditor General.
Can I be assured that no member of the Starship foundation board is in
that position?
Regards
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Everyone
I know I should not respond to NPOG, but somehow his posts annoy me so much.
The innuendo and perversion of reality; coupled with his smears makes me irate.
I will try and rise above his rubbish.
NPOG in a last expression of my frustration – PISS OFF
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:36 am
i have a resonse to NPOG too – STOP SPONGING OFF THE REST OF US, YOU RUNNING DOG OF SOCIALISM BALL LICKING FUCKER.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:36 am
ok, so that was stream of consciousness, but I meant it.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Well, BL, consider the amount of taxpayers funding you have eaten up at the Family Court and other places.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:41 am
NPOG it’s funny you talking about moral fibre. You’re more the kind that fibre brings out the best in.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Parties who illegally overspent tax payers money
* The Labour Party: $768,000
* New Zealand First $150,400
* The Green Party $80,900
* United Future $63,800
Parties who also overspent at the last election, but were quick to admit their mistake and paid up.
* Act $17,800
* National Party $11,300
* Maori Party $48
It is interesting to note that the same parties who were slow to pay up, or haven’t yet paid up are all the same parties who are now backing the Electoral Finance Bill.
Was the price of their support for the Electoral Finance Bill paid with the passing of the retrospective legislation, which legalised their theft from the public purse.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 4:09 am
“Parties who illegally overspent tax payers money”
Bill English and the National Party 2002 : $500 000 minimum.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 4:40 am
NPOG
Please can you give us a credible link or reference which shows where the National Party illegaly spent a minimum $500,000.00.
It is now put up or shut up time Troll
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Razorlight
Contact Robert Buchanan and ask him for the guidelines the AG used for determining if parliamentary communications in 2005 meet were legal or not
tel: +64 4 917 1500
e-mail: Robert.Buchanan@oag.govt.nz
I think you will find the guidelines the AG used easily catch Bill English’s and National’s pledge card in 2002.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 4:56 am
NPOG, what a wanker.
So you admit to being in default of your student loan obligations, eh? Why aren’t I surprised?
You’re probably hoping a Labour Govt will make a law writing it all off one day and I suppose you can’t be blamed for thinking that given the example the thieving bastards have set for us all. If only you’d studied medicine…
Thanks for the link Paul M. I just made a contribution to Starship in appreciation of them wiping their arse with Winnies “donation”
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Razorlight
Can I refer you to page 27 of the AG’s report?
“The Service and some parliamentary parties also questioned the relevance of the
law generated under the Electoral Act to the Speaker’s Directions. Their contention
was that the term “electioneering” had two different meanings:
under the Electoral Act case law, electioneering means something that is
intended to persuade a voter to favour a candidate or party in an election, and
it is not necessary for advertising to explicitly solicit a vote for it to fall in this
category; but
under the Members’ Handbook of Services, electioneering means only the
explicit soliciting of votes, membership, or funding.
3.26 I am not persuaded that the relevant passage of the Members’ Handbook of
Services (see paragraph 3.7) will bear that interpretation of electioneering.
Electoral Act case law, on the other hand, recognises that a person’s voting
decisions can be infl uenced by information intended to persuade – not just by
simple requests from parties for their vote. In my view, the Solicitor-General’s
advice that the Electoral Act approach is relevant in the appropriation context is
both sensible and reasonable.
3.27 As noted earlier, advertising for parliamentary purposes clearly excludes
advertising for electioneering purposes. The appropriation framework and
relevant guidance make this distinction clear. The Party and Member Support
appropriations authorise expenditure for parliamentary purposes only. An
advertisement paid for on the basis that it is for a parliamentary purpose
therefore cannot lawfully have an electioneering purpose as well.”
Now the only question is: did Bill English’s 2002 Pledge Card have an electioneering purpose?
If the answer is “yes” and I believe it is, he and the National party misappropriated around half a million dollars.
Seems quite straight forward.
[DPF: Umm on what basis do you estimate the 2002 so called pledge card cost $500,000?]
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Well done Starship. Ethics are about making the right decisions. At times ethical decisions have costs. However, making those correct decisions should not be avoided by a perceived cost in monetary terms.
In NZ first’s case Winston was mouthing that they had some moral right not to pay their over expenditureback.
Sorry but the argument has no ethical basis it is simply premised on political expediency. There is never anything ethical about political expediency.
Well now Winston you still owe $150K. When are you going to pay? Or more likely what is your next sorry chapter of tacky political expediency due. This pseudo moralist and baublist should be the primary target for removal from our parliament.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 6:26 am
On an earlier post Reg said;
“You have to feel sorry for NZ First supporters, they must feel like proverbial lamp-posts awaiting their regular wetting from the dominant Poodle.”
No you don’t have to feel sorry. NZ First supporters are not capable of seeing anything wrong with Winston. Although hopefully the numbers are reducing
They just love his silver tongue and his offer of baubles to them. Oh thank you so much for the God Card Winston. What do I do with it Winston? Don’t know, but it must be terrific because Winston got it for me.
He has never produced anything but copious amounts of warm air. He has been a problem to all the other parties but they all keep encouraging him. The media love him because he is good copy and they haven’t yet worked out how to handle him in over 25 years.
Despite his own self promotion he has done nothing but cause instability and a now tiresome sideshow.
This pseudo moralist and baublist should be the primary target for removal from our parliament.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Poor old Winnie what to do now, no one wants his tainted money. It must come as a bit of a shock to Winnie that there are some in our society who will not be used as a political coal post no matter what the inducement. I hope for Starships sake that they benifit from this as they diserve to. Politicians must be some of the most stupid people I know, why did Winnie just not pay the money back and say sorry to the people to NZ. I’m sure this would have earned him more votes then his latests smart arse attempt to endear himself to the people.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 7:09 am
All this carry on proves is that there is no such thing as bad PR.
I dont think either Winston or starship are loosers
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 7:10 am
So I’m inclined to do something like this… Hope others might join me…
I’ll pledge $10 to Starship for being smart enough to give the money back. I’ll also pledge $10 to every other charity that Winnie offers his dirty money to who in turn refuse it.
We need about 15,000 people pledging an average of $10 per charity to ensure that parliamentary services get their money back.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Well NPoG
One way that you can illustrate how much you actually care about the misappropration of funds, and show support for the starship for its similarly principled appraoch to dirty money, is to make a donation out of the goodness of your this close to Christmas:
http://www.starship.org.nz/donation
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 7:29 am
sorry should read ‘your heart’
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Does it not seem obvious to the trolls of the Left here, such as NGOP, that their behaviour is the biggest advertisement not to vote Left that money can’t buy?
I’m happy to overlook their daily electioneering on this blogsite because they kick own goals everytime they post.
Who would vote for these arrogant, vile, imbeciles?
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 8:01 am
The Dominion Post says Mr Peters is disappointed but is determined to give the money to a good cause rather than Parliamentary Services.
This should show whether or not Winston’s brain has stepped out to make room for his ego.
And it will be interesting to see what charitable cause he came rally to accept stolen tax payer funds after Starship’s ethical stand of turning it down. Perhaps he could offer it to the Exclusive Brethren.
• We will stay on the cross benches and not accept the baubles of office
Vote:• We established an Oldie Goldie Card but no worthwhile discounts
• We’re getting 1000 more cops but ones with half the normal IQ
• We’re giving the money we stole back
• We’re still giving the money back, but when we have the interest off it
• We’ve given the money back but for the most political gain and media leverage we have given it to a charity
• We, having had that donation rejected will try and find another political opportunity to highlight our crass egotism
• We won’t learn from our mistakes
. . . and our only hope is that our supporters are to stupid to learn from theirs.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:19 am
The Auditor-General, who determined that parties should repay to Parliamentary Services the public moneys that they mis-spent in the 2005 election, is an officer of Parliament.
He is answerable to Parliament solely for his office’s use of public resources, but in law he is independent of both Parliament and the government in the discharge of his office’s duties. This relationship is an element of NZ’s constitutional framework.
With their “donation” of 30 pieces of silver to Starship, Winston Peters and his party have shown arrogant and unprecedented contempt for the Parliament within which they purport to serve NZ’s interests. They deserve the infamous memory that should continue to attach to their actions.
But again the question needs to be asked, where did NZ First’s $158,000 come from in the first place?
If not from the EB or the Business Roundtable, which still-anonymous organisation or individual is next to be maligned?
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 8:30 am
myself:
“• We won’t learn from our mistakes . . . and our only hope is that our supporters are to stupid to learn from theirs.”
Should of course have been “too stupid to learn from theirs”
Vote:But hey, I was stupid enough to bloody vote to NZF last Election [ I'm really, really sorry New Zealand! ], so I guess I will make a few other mistakes too – like ‘to’ instead of ‘too’ – oh, shit – forget it . . .
December 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I’ve pledged $100 to Starship for being smart enough to give the money back. I’ll also pledge $100 to every other charity that Winnie offers his dirty money to who in turn refuse it.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 9:55 am
The one person I truly feel sorry for is Ron Mark! I suggest he put his feelers out now, he would be a very worthwhile addition to National’s party list!
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I have sent my donation through. Good standards by Starship.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Starship’s rejection of Winston’s gift is now an albatross around his neck and the necks of all those MPs who voted for the Validation Bill
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 11:02 am
natural party of govt Says:
December 15th, 2007 at 5:17 am
This has no bearing at all.
Crimes Act 1961: Section25: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. More so in the case of MPs.
Police Commissioner Rob Robinson quoted this section in his Press Release on Helen’s Paintergate
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Would Ron join Act?
Would Act have him?
He is wasted in NZ First, and would be left to rot on the backbenches with National.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Maybe National should make him an offer, then.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
A word to Winston, Helen, Peter, Jeanette and others who think ethics is a county in England:
If you steal from the public and get caught, you can’t get away with paying the money back to someone else.
You can’t expect to be praised for your public spiritedness.
democracymum is dead right: the very parties who misappropriated the most money are those who now want to stop the parties who misappropriated the least money from spending their own money.
Labour, NZ First, the Greens and UnitedFuture are broke. They’re broke because they broke the law.
If National, Act and the Maori Party are not broke, it’s because they deserve not to be broke.
The National Party Leader’s Office managed not to overspend by one single cent. That was not a coincidence. There is a reason for that.
It was because their leader insisted that they must stay within the rules.
The contrast with the Labour leadership could not be more stark.
What goes round in life is supposed to come round. That is the natural law.
But Labour, NZ First, the Greens and UnitedFuture say natural law is unfair.
They say we should all turn a blind eye to the inequal scale of their misappropriation (which in Labour’s case should rightly be called theft).
They say the playing field should be levelled.
They say what goes round must be stopped from coming round at all costs.
They invoke the spirit of fairness.
They pretend that it is only right that they should pass the Electoral Finance Bill to level that playing field.
But the public are more fairminded. They can see that Labour, NZ First, the Greens and United are being grossly unfair.
They can see that they are just feathering their own nest. And that the correct name for the bill should be the Election Rigging Bill.
New Zealanders are not stupid. They can see that the real problem is not the Exclusive Brethren.
It is the Corrupt Sisterhood.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
National and/or ACT need to put aside egos and aspirations and approach Ron Mark with a good offer.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Ego? Sorry, Kev et. al., what exactly would National or ACT get out of handing Ron Mark a safe list placing? When Tau joined National – to the vitriolic contempt from Mark, need I add – he actually put in the hard yards in building credibility and trust to get where he is. And I don’t think I’m talking out of school in saying that he also had to overcome a lot of scepticism from many at the grassroots.
Sorry if this sounds graceless, but when you lie down with a rabid and not particularly hygienic poodle, you get up with fleas. Ron Mark, and Winston First, have to save their own arses – and the best of British to them if they want to re-make that party into something more than a personality cult.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
This cartoon by Mike Moreu sums things up well. The caption asks ‘Prince of Electoral Fees’?
http://stuff.co.nz/0a17217.html
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ron isn’t a liberal, would hardly fit into ACT .. Nats maybe, they believe in anythng that suits them.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Ron isn’t a liberal, would hardly fit into ACT .. Nats maybe, they believe in anythng that suits them.
OK, Mike, got to say ACT’s done some shit that would only be recognizable as classical liberalism if viewed through a very thick pair of beer goggles. So let’s send that particular moral high horse to the knackers yard, and see ACT focused on cleaning their own house instead of bitching the Nats. If nothing else, it didn’t compensate for a weirdly ill-focused campaign in ’05.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Yes, Craig you’ve got a good point its just that the parties need to weigh up what is good for the country and not just for the people in the party. If Ron could bring in another 100K party votes for National its worth considering thats all. But I do agree that anyone that has stuck out with the curent government has to be considered severely damaged goods.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
We all must recall when little Ronnie was telling Simon Power that 4 years ago a review of the Correction H/Q was all that was needed. Next he was out selling the dog mirco chipping crap.
Then the anti smacking bill and now the EFB.
What more evidence do you need to convict
Got the impression the Tui adv is close by.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Well said Raffles, souls are cheap if you work NZst.
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Rebelheart – it’s called principle. Peter’s was using Children as pawns in his political game. I applaud the decision to send the money back to the scroats in NZ First. I agree the only one with any sense of homour is Ron Mark.
Bale out Ron! They’re going down in flames – either tyhat or throw Winnie and Woollerton to the wolves. You may stand some small chance on your own, but don’t hold your breath – you’ve left it very late!
Vote:December 15th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
“[DPF: Umm on what basis do you estimate the 2002 so called pledge card cost $500,000?]“
DPF, I will accept on trust any figure you name which covers the taxpayer cost for printing and distribution. I assume you have access to this data and given your well known enthusiasm for accountability for taxpayer’s funds I have no doubt you will be as eager as I to see it public.
I note that you dont dispute that the 2002 pledge card fails the test the AG applied in 2005.
Hence the money was misappropriated.
[DPF: Well here is the funny thing. I don't even recall the 2002 pledge card. And yes I worked in Bill's office at the time. Whether it fails the AG test would depend on the wording, and when it was published. So how come I can't recall the pledge card? Well my assumption is that it was a pretty minor publication - not the centrepiece of the campaign like Labour's was - and it was so minor it did not register with me. Labour printed 1.5 million and posted one to every home. I don't know but I suspect National probably only had a few ten thousand printed for a fairly minor cost of a few thousand.
And I have no access to the data. What I would be willing to bet though is that if you did extend the AG test back to the 2002 election also, Labour's debt would again be a magnitude larger than National's]
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 8:14 am
DPF: ‘Umm on what basis do you estimate the 2002 so called pledge card cost $500,000?’
natural party of govt: ‘DPF, I will accept on trust any figure you name’.
In other words, you made it up.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:16 am
“Well here is the funny thing. I don’t even recall the 2002 pledge card. ”
LOL, that is one of the most inadvertantly funny things written here.
Nobody from National can recall the pledge card.
“And I have no access to the data.”
Why not? I thought you were that great believer in open government? Surely the National Party isnt going to hide from the taxpayers what it does with their money?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:28 am
NPoG:
Could you save us all a lot of time, and just post a direct link to the Labour Party talking points you’re regurgitating ad nauseum at any given time? And since you’re going to dismiss DPF as a liar whenever he doesn’t say exactly what you want to hear, why even pretend you’re interested in any kind of dialogue?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
” And since you’re going to dismiss DPF as a liar whenever he doesn’t say exactly what you want to hear, why even pretend you’re interested in any kind of dialogue?”
How can I dismiss someone as a liar who says he knows nothing?
I am sure the figure is available from Head Office and when DPF comes back with not one but two qualifiers “but I suspect National probably” then we all know what that means.
Put up the 2002 card cost or shut up.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:14 am
NPOG:
your argument to start with. So if you can’t put up an argument then I suggest you shut up now and stop embarrassing yourself.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Something went wrong with the HTML tags. That should have said: This was your argument to start with.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Peak Oil Conspiracy – as a taxpayer don’t you believe the parties should be absolutely accountable and transparent about how they spend our money?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:33 am
NPOG:
Yes, of course.
But, with respect, that’s a distraction. Your argument was that National’s pledge card in 2002 cost $500,000. Frankly, like DPF, I can’t even remember the pledge card – but even if there was one, and I’m happy to see any links you’ve got, you’re the one saying it cost $500,000. And people have asked you repeatedly now to substantiate the allegation.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:40 am
“Peak Oil Conspiracy – as a taxpayer don’t you believe the parties should be absolutely accountable and transparent about how they spend our money?”
“NPOG:
Yes, of course.”
So DPF, that is two voices demanding that National release an exact accounting of its spending of taxpayers’ money – including the 2002 pledge card.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:46 am
NPOG:
Your selective quoting is worse than Sonic – how about addressing the substantive part of my comment?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Hold that DPF, might just be one voice after all.
“Your selective quoting is worse than Sonic”
I am sorry, do you or do you think that spending of Parliamentary services allocations should be totally transparent so that the taxpayer can see exactly what his/her money is spent on?
You seem to be unsure on this one.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:51 am
NPOG:
This historical account may be of some interest to you:
http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/privacy/people/parlsb.html
Let’s take stock of this thread (insofar as it concerns you):
You made an allegation. You were challenged repeatedly to substantiate it. You haven’t. Then you’ve shifted gears and said it’s National’s fault for not giving you the information.
Now, if you want political parties to disclose every single item of spending, then that’s something to be applied across the board. But that’s another debate entirely.
We’re still waiting for you to substantiate your original allegation. Any chance of that happening?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Dont you see the irony of national party insiders loudly denoucing one estimate but coyly refusing to name the real figure.
And remember who provided National with this money which they refuse to disclose?
WE DID!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:20 am
So you admit your original allegation was made up? You had no basis for it?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:26 am
“So you admit your original allegation was made up?”
Not in the slightest. Even DPF admits there was a pledgecard, his point is that “I don’t know but I suspect National probably only had a few ten thousand printed”
Frankly, from a person who claims to be an advocate of open and transparent government that is not good enough.
He worked in the Leader of the Opposition’s office at the time. Let him demand from his former colleagues how much taxpayers’ money Bill English spent on producing and distributing the pledge card.
And then why don’t we here and at National Party Head Office have a whip around and pay that sum to the Starship.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:31 am
NPOG:
Now you’re spinning. DPF’s words:
The original allegation was yours. You’re now complaining that DPF doesn’t get information to support your allegation. But this is deflecting – it’s your allegation to prove. Again, any chance of that happening?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:33 am
So are you denying there was a pledge card now?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:34 am
I’ve just realised how selectively you quoted DPF.
You say:
DPF said:
Notice how you stopped at “only had a few ten thousand printed” and forgot to mention “for a fairly minor cost of a few thousand”?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:35 am
You say there was a pledge card. You say it cost $500,000. Yet again I ask: evidence please. Chop chop.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:36 am
Do you accept there was a pledge card or not?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:38 am
It doesn’t matter what I accept. You’ve made an allegation. Neither DPF nor I (nor, as far as I can tell, anyone else who’s contributed to this thread) can verify your claim. Surely you can substantiate it?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:39 am
“It doesn’t matter what I accept. You’ve made an allegation.”
Honestly, I don’t think the fact that Bill English had a pledge card in 2002 paid for by Parliamentary Services is an allegation but a matter of historical record.
Do you also think the Treaty of Waitangi is an allegation?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:41 am
NPOG:
Excellent – so you can provide a link then? And then perhaps you can sort out that awkward business about it costing $500,000? Oh, and Do you also think the Treaty of Waitangi is an allegation is, as Craig Ranapia would say, a weapon of mass distraction. Let’s focus on your allegation about the cost of a pledge card.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 3:44 am
“Excellent – so you can provide a link then? ”
Knock yourself out
Vote:http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=de&q=%22Bill+English%22+2002+pledge+card&meta=
December 17th, 2007 at 3:52 am
I could knock myself out. There’s much to ponder in that link. It defaults to Google Australia – but the default language isn’t English.
But none of that has anything to do with your original allegation: Bill English had a pledge card which cost $500,000.
Which specific link should I click to find that information?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:10 am
” There’s much to ponder in that link”
Well, try not to stay up to late pondering it.
“But none of that has anything to do with your original allegation: Bill English had a pledge card which cost $500,000.
Which specific link should I click to find that information?”
http://www.national.org.nz/GetInvolved/contactus.aspx
Say you are a mate of DPF and a strong believer in transparent spending of taxpayers funds.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:24 am
So you still can’t substantiate that $500,000 figure? Surely you can admit to making it up?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Tick tick boom…?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Flabbergasted!!
I would not have predicted this outcome in a thousand years.
No one gives money back, particularly that amount.
Or perhaps that amount was the reason.
Winston is swearing, if not audibly, internally.
He would not have guessed in a thousand years they would give the money back. Now no charitable org will have the stomach to accept the donation.
I would suggest the Mormons. You can be an elder there in 5 mins flat if you have the finance.
Which leaves the q of the 158. Its burning Winstons hands, he can’t hold it. I believe the words accountability and integrity will be missing from his campaign speeches next year.
The campaign over all is just going to be huge fun to listen to as the commies try to make us forget they have been stripping us of our fundamental democratic voice and plying us with the honeyed tones of tax cuts they told us never to expect to hear.
Incredible, absolutely incredible!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
“Tick tick boom…?”
You’ll have to excuse me. Although I was posting during daylight hours and not in the small hours of the morning even I do not spend all day (let alone night) on kiwiblog.
The figure that National spent on the pledge card is for them to reveal and refund – since they seem so convinced they misappropriated it.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 1:46 am
NPOG:
I’ll take that as an admission that you can’t prove this allegation:
It was your allegation – hence it is not for National to reveal and refund.
I suggest you admit to telling lies and stop digging.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 2:49 am
“It was your allegation – hence it is not for National to reveal and refund.”
Yes it is, it is my money.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 3:14 am
NPOG:
So where’s your proof that National spent $500,000? Oh that’s right, you made it up.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 3:27 am
“So where’s your proof that National spent $500,000? Oh that’s right, you made it up.”
The dispute is not whether National misappropriated the money according to the AG’s definition.
The issue is how much.
I think the National Party owes us both, and the taxpayers of New Zealand whose money they stole, an answer.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 3:35 am
NPOG:
You can’t even admit to plucking a figure ($500,000) out of the air? Why’s that too hard for you?
Didn’t we establish the other night that the spending is now retrospectively legalised? So it’s surely a non-issue, courtesy of Labour.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 4:14 am
“You can’t even admit to plucking a figure ($500,000) out of the air? Why’s that too hard for you?”
Why doesnt National and DPF as one of their backroom boys stump up with the figure.
Don’t you want to know?
“Didn’t we establish the other night that the spending is now retrospectively legalised? ”
Except National hold this is unprincipled and unethical.
So I call on them to be principled and ethical.
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Incidently POC, do you post from NZ?
Vote:December 20th, 2007 at 4:54 am
NPOG:
Right. So we’ve now established that you made up the $500,000 figure.
And that you’d like National to reveal the actual figure. An obvious question arises: have you tried asking them?
If you could bring yourself to move beyond the National smeer-job, there’s actually a broader issue: what disclosure regime (if any) should govern spending by political parties of their Parliamentary Services allocations?
Seeing as you clearly support a disclosure regime, one wonders how it’d operate in practical terms. Why? Because any such regime wouldn’t just apply to National – even though you’re interested in a particular item of National’s historical spending. Should a political party (or Parliamentary Services) be required to answer every whimsical question from a member of the public? Should there be minimum monetary amounts involved so, for example, one can’t require disclosure of stationery costs (Bic pens and pencil sharpeners) – disclosing this sort of information would be a wasteful use of resources.
I don’t pretend to have ready answers to hand – but you’ve no doubt thought this through more fully. It’d make for a much more constructive debate than National did this, Labour did that.
No. But hopefully you won’t claim this disqualifies me from informed debate – I like to think I follow NZ politics very closely, even if one perhaps loses some of the subtlety from an overseas vantage point.
Vote: