Glenn says Brethren campaign prompted his $500,000 donation to Labour
The Dominion Post quotes expat billionaire Owen Glenn as citing the Exclusive Brethren’s “sneaky” campaign against Labour as what prompted him to donate $500,000 to the Labour Party. To quote the article:
He made the decision to give $500,000 to the New Zealand Labour Party while on his yacht in the Caribbean.
“There was a little bit of controversy to do with some church that had done something.”
That controversy was a $1 million campaign by the Exclusive Brethren to get National elected, a move that sparked the Government’s race to bring in new electoral finance laws before this year’s election.
What really riled Mr Glenn was the “sneaky” way in which the Brethren had reportedly tried to hide the fact it was behind the campaign.
“I thought, `Poor old Labour; let’s make this a little more interesting.’ There’s a little bit of imp in me.”
Now there is a serious credibility issue here. Very very serious. You see the Brethren campaign only became public in September 2005. And when did Owen Glenn make his donations? Well according to the Electoral Commission he gave $199,960 to Labour in 2004 – yes in 2004. And he gave a further $300,000 in 2005.
And as further proof we have this story in May 2005 with Labour President Mike Williams announcing the $500,000 donation by Owen Glenn, and confirming they had already received the $500,000 – with the first payment appearing to be on 9 November 2004 and the last on 9 March 2005.
So how does one reconcile these conflicting facts. There seem to be only three possibilities
- Owen Glenn knew about the Brethren’s plans a year before anyone else in NZ did
- The Dominion Post has grossly misrepresented what Owen Glenn has said
- Owen Glenn has lied
I am surpised the Dominion Post themselves didn’t pick up the inconsistency with the dates. They now need to confirm whether or not they have accurately reported the words of Mr Glenn. I will refrain from further comment on the implications until it is clear whether or not the story is correct.
There are also two other items of interest in the Dom Post Story:
- Helen Clark offered him a seat in Parliament and the role of Transport Minister. It is unclear whether or not this was before or after his $500,000 donation
- Owen Glenn made a further contribution to Labour after the election by loaning them money. If the loan was not at a commercial rate of interest I would argue it is a donation (for the amount of interest not charged) under the then s214F(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, and if this is the case Labour needs to clarify whether or not it has recognised that donation on its books and disclosed it to the Electoral Commission (if over the threshold). There have been huge scandals in the UK about UK Labour receiving interest free loans from donors.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Someone has just pointed out to me a 4th possibility. That Owen Glenn has made two donations of $500,000 – one in 04/05 and one after the 05 election. However Labour did not declare a donation from him in 2006 so this seems unlikely.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
yes Labour seem ver creative when it comes to accounting for money received don’t they? re donations check this out too.
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/electioneering-money-go-round-wheres.html
It asks ‘what happened to the donations in 2004/2005 – and How was the pledge card overspnd raised?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am
The difference between declared donations in those two years is just under $106,453.00. Is it a coincidence that there was a massive drop-off of declared union donations in 2006, which fell to within about $24,000 of the shortfall needed to repay the Pledge-card debt? Yet coincidentally, the EPMU came up with $20,000 of declared readies?
If this theory is true, it was an act of breathtaking cynicism by Labour to promote the EFA as a ‘Level Playing Field’ and new brand of political ‘Transparency’. They villified the legal practices of the Exclusive Brethren and claimed the EFA was ‘designed to stop people like John Key and the Exclusive Brethren from rorting the electoral process’ (to quote HC). While all the time they were squirrelling undisclosed sums of untraceable donations from previously declared sources in order to repay the cash they willfully stole during the previous election.
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/electioneering-money-go-round-wheres.html
February 15th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Simple answer DPF – he got too close to the PM, and picked up the “Unfortunate Untruth” syndrome she and her colleagues seem to suffer from.
Interesting too that in the conclusion to the article he describes Dear Leader’s performance as PM since 2005 as “adequate”, and calls for a repeal of the anti-nuke legislation “for the sake of expediency” to facilitate a free trade deal with the USA. I suspect he will be the topic of some discussion on the 9th Floor today, and it won’t be flattering!
February 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
David has, probably through politeness, missed a few other possibilities out.
1. Mike Williams has lied about the $500,000
2. Labour has hidden the $500,000 somewhere as it doesn’t show in their declarations.
3. Either the declarations are false, or Mike Willioams and Owen Glenn are liars, they can’t both be true.
4. What about the donations for Ministerial positions!!!!
5. Where is the money???
6. Buying policy?
7. Cash for Honours?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I’m pretty sure the fact that the Brethen were supporting the Nats came out before September 2005 David.
Indeed I recall some full page ads in the Herald (round defence) way before that.
According to Wiki (I know) the Brethren were active for 18 months before the poll
February 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Seems like transparency in donations may well have been the last thing Labour needed, and so, oh wait, that’s right, the EFB didn;t cover that very well, did it!
February 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Dumb move by Glenn to reignite that debate.
Shame of it is that politics aside he seems to be an the category of outstanding New Zealander.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Glad to see Whale oil’s interest,.
Perhaps he could give us a list of National’s totally anonymous donors, just so we can check that none of them are paying cash for policies?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
sonic: I’m pretty sure the fact that the Brethen were supporting the Nats came out before September 2005 David.
The leaflet campaign was done in August/September of 2005. The Green Party first responded on the 3rd of September.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9329.html
Can you link to the material you say they published prior to that?
February 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Sonic, you disappoint me, that is really lame. I have no idea who National’s donors are because they are anonymous as were most of Labours.
The EFA didn’t even scratch the surface on anonymous donation which is appalling given that Labour banged on endlessly about it and National said they would be happy to have no anonymous donations put into the law. Labour unfortunately decided that it really did need anonymous donations left there.
Oh and unfortunately for you Sonic google has scotched (sorry for the pun) your first post.
http://www.google.com/views?q=exclusive+brethren+nz+view%3Atimeline&btnGt=Search&num=5
February 15th, 2008 at 9:07 am
The Herals did have a full page ad on defence policy way, way before that, an I’m pretty sure their name was mentioned before that.
I don’t have access to Lexus Nexus at the moment, if one of our journo friends could do a quick search…
February 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am
“Helen Clark offered him a seat in Parliament and the role of Transport Minister.”
So rich pricks get offered portfolio’s and gong’s, which is rather unusual considering caustic Kullen and his cronies lambast the National Party at every second of the day for being allies with the EB, business round table and other rich pricks.
The loan that Mr Glenn gave “Poor old Labour” for the last rort election has been paid back?Yeah right !! From whom? I doubt a cent was forwarded to Glenn from the corrupt regime. Liarbour couldn’t even pay back the kiwi taxpayer after stealing all that money to buy a pathetic fraudulent pledge card.
Thieves and liars = liarbour
February 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Oh, this is delicious.
Another issue arising from this story is the incompetency of MSM. As soon as I saw the headline of David’s post my immediate thought was “how could he have possibly known about the EB campaign when he decided to donate to Labour”.
Seriously David, the Dompost owes you a days wages for doing the job they pay their journos to suppposedly do.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
The hollow men showed that the Brethren were in contact with National way before 2005.
Someone in the Labour party could have told Owen Glen about it.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
According to Wiki (I know) the Brethren were active for 18 months before the poll
Which would then suggest that Owen Glenn knew about the Brethren campaign before it was known by anyone else.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I’m sure lots of people knew about the Brethren before 2005 (Don Brash and most of his staff)
It’s not beyond the bounds of possibilty that it leaked out to political insiders long before it became public.
Speaking of insiders, I wonder how much our host knew about it before late 2005?
[DPF: And that's 20 demerits. I have answered that many times, so you are calling me a liar]
February 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Owen Glenn is tarred with the same bullshit brush as Helen and I bet his yacht flies the jolly roger flag.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Don Brash and his staff certainly knew about it Bevan,
February 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Sonic, if you believe what Nicky Hager writes then:
In his opening chapter The Path of Principle, Hager writes that National and the Exclusive Brethren’s first interaction was on April 5, 2005, at a National Campaign Strategy Meeting. – from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10412282
Even that date is after Owen Glenn dates of prescience.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Argh! Comment held for moderation. Sorry Sonic, I can’t post the link to the Herald it will have to wait until DPF approves the comment.
However, Nicky Hager alleges that the Brethren first met with National in April 2005. So, given that he is a god to the Left, it would seem that somehow Owen Glenn knew about this before anything actually happened. Or whichever of the other theories posted suits your fancy.
What is apparent is that something smells rotten in this whole business.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Always nice to have a rich friend. Wasn’t wealthly individals having a big influence in the democractic system the very thing labour were saying they were trying to stop…?
I shudder to think what will happen next time Mr Glenn feels his inner ‘imp’ coming out.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Sorry guys. As much as its galls me to say this, I received in the mail a leaflet from a businessman (who is a Brethren). The leaflet was about Defence policy in New Zealand and I seem to recall it was asking for a more robust NZ military. I received this way earlier in the year before the anti-Green leaflets in Aug + September 2005. It may have been March time. I don’t have a web link or proof of this, but then given that IMHO Labour are the worst Government I have ever seen (and no this is not a threadjack, is just to prove that I’m not an apologist for Labour) because of the Supreme Court Act, Prostitution Law, Anti-Smacking law, EFA, Care of Children Act, then I would hardly *want* to say this.
Having said that I do disagree with probably just about every political viewpoint that Sonic has, but where events happen they have to be mentioned.
[DPF: None of this was before his first donation in Nov 04]
February 15th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Wasn’t wealthy individuals having a big influence in the democratic system the very thing Labour were saying they were trying to stop’.
Only if they were supporting National or the right Richard!!!
February 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
As much as it galls me to say this, I clearly recall receiving a leaflet from a businessman (who turned out to be a member of the Brethren church) in the mail that was critical of NZ Defence Policy. It was calling for a more robust NZ military, and could be construed to be opposing the Government policy of the day. I would have received this way before the anti-Green campaign in Aug/Sept 2005, probably around 6 months earlier. While I don’t have a link to prove this, it is not something I would *want* to say unless it wasn’t true.
Just to make the point obvious, I think IMHO that this Government is the worst outfit I have ever seen. The Supreme Court Act, Care of Children Act, Prostitution law, anti-smacking law, EFA represent some of the most henious pieces of rubbish ever to surface. So despite that I’ll still mention events that need to be mentioned, and one is the Defence leaflet.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
25 demerits, D4J, for grotesque mixing of metaphors.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
One leaflet doesnt prompt someone to donate $500k.
The EB may have been active before September 2005, but their “war chest” and plans would have to be known for Glenn to have told the truth. (Misreporting aside.)
February 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
whoops…I mean “I would *want* to say unless it WAS true.”
February 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Once again, the blogosphere demonstrates the incompetence of the lame socialists propagandists who dare to call themselve’s journalists
…and how about the offer of the Transport Ministry. One doesn’t need any special talents to get a cushy position in the Labour Party. They’re apparently allocated on the basis of wealth, and how much of it your prepepared to give to the party.
What a stinking gang of cronyist crooks govern this country.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Kimble,
maybe it would prompt a big donation. I seem to think that Labour and its supporters like to squash any opposition (however big or small) as much as they can. 1/2million dollars seems to prove that
, and given he likes to be an imp it goes with the territory.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Gotta love the bit about ditching the no nukes policy, that will not go down well on the ninth floor.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
The DomPost does seem to have made blunder in any case:
“There was a little bit of controversy to do with some church that had done something.”
That controversy was a $1 million campaign by the Exclusive Brethren to get National elected, a move that sparked the Government’s race to bring in new electoral finance laws before this year’s election.
Glenn didn’t say exactly what he thought the controversy was, but in gallops the DomPost saying what it thinks it was. Quite poor reporting, so maybe DPF’s #2 solution is roughly correct:
“The Dominion Post has grossly misrepresented (by accident??) what Owen Glenn has said”.
On a separate note, I do think that the DomPost is more like a low budget community rag compared to the breadth and depth of the Herald in general, so it does not really surprise me that they make such blunders.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
this is rather usual considering caustic dad4justice and his cronies
[DPF: remainder deleted by DPF and 20 demerits for it]
February 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
“He made the decision to give $500,000 to the New Zealand Labour Party while on his yacht in the Caribbean.”
Sounds like a lying rich prick to me.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The defence brochures did come out about 5/6 months earlier. However was it widely known who was behind them and was there any publicity on that?
And how did Glen get to hear about something, with at least minimal publicity, on his yacht in the Carribean and why would he be interested?
Did Mike Williams contact him then with a sob story about the nasty EBs?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
What’s with the $1 million? The socialist wankers calling themselves journalists keep repeating this figure. As far as I know, its speculation, not fact. I think the EB deny spending anything like this amount.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:20 am
If it is true that there was common knowledge of the EB’s involvement well before the election, to shat extent does the ’shock-horror’ revelation by Clark and Hager’s book amount to a carefully contrived electioneering ploy, using illegally retrieved emails as well as referring to legally allowed material?
Why was it not referred to the EC earlier?
Surely if they knew it was going on for so long and let it happen for their own political purposes, Labour are as guilty of collusion and perverting the electoral process as Nation have been accused of?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
sorry ‘what extent’ – not ’shat extent’
February 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
There is of course another possibility. Psychologists call it back-propagation. Mr Glenn’s memory may be defective, and so he is trying to fill in the gaps with what knowledge he now possesses about the events in question. He is obviously aware of the EB’s involvement in the last election. Maybe he wants to convince a sceptical public that his recent honour, bestowed on him by Labour, is not a payoff for his services. Indeed, he says as much in today’s DomPost. He says his donation to Labour was motivated by the EB’s contribution, because he believes it is a plausible explanation. Of course, this theory is predicated on the assumption that he’s forgotten why he donated $500,000 to Labour. That is a little hard to swallow, but maybe it is possible.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
If there is one thing that needs to be corrected with a review of the election it is to prise open that kind of secret funding because if anything is going to lead to corruption in New Zealand politics, it is big corporates buying elections. (Helen Clark, Sept 06)
February 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
ross – or to assist in election year, he is a water-carrier for Labour looking for a way to re-ignite the EB controversy as a preamble to smearing Jkey ….
February 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I think the offer of a cabinet job for a $500,000 donation needs looking into further. She will deny it of course but it needs pressing. I can accept cash for honours (because they are useless bits of tin) but cash for cabinet posts!!!!
February 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Imagine a ‘rich prick’ in the same cabinet as Cullen!
February 15th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I’d be more concerned about someone with a spare half a mill knocking around thinking “hmmm, Minister of Transport? Wonder if I can get Minister of SOEs for $700K?”
February 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
The $1.2 million that the EB allegedly donated to National has been well spun by Russell Brown, among others. My understanding is that the EB spent only $500,000 at the last election. But hey, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes true.
Of course, Mr Glenn may have been tipped off about the EB campaign by the same person who had access to Don Brash’s emails.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Is it my imagination or as time goes on is the amount the EB spent going up all the time?
Am I bid 200,000.. $400,000, bid bid 800,000 $1 Million do I hear 5 million, 10 million….. oh the sky’s the limit!
I wonder if story books for children written by lefties will shortly have the EB as the trolls under the bridge, or the boggy men in the closet?
Bullshit and propaganda.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
You summed it all up in three words Lance – “Bullshit and propoganda”. And as others have remarked, the EB story has been beaten up, exaggerated and lied about so often that misconceptions have become accepted as fact.
I was astounded by what Glenn is reported to have said in the DomPost today – the government’s response will be interesting to say the least – caught with their pants down methinks!
February 15th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I’m fascinated by Mr Glenn’s comment that a free trade deal with China will be worth $4 billion to NZ, and that the public will consequently be able to afford another beer and ten bucks to spend on the races. If that’s all the average punter can expect from a multi-billion-dollar deal, some one is obviously going to be creaming it. That someone is apparently Mr Glenn. Nice.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I would go for the “they are lying” option.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Here’s my take on it:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/hoist-by-their-own-petard.html
February 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
At the time Labour announced Glen’s donation it was claimed he was motivated by Labour pushing for a free trade deal with China. Now he claims he was motivated by the EBs. Both posistions cannot be true. Which one is the lie.
Moreover, I imagine Glen’s business would benefit immensely by any free trade deal. Cash for policy anyone.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Labour has lost the right to claim the moral high ground over election funding. There are many, many unanswered questions here, and no doubt they will give the opposition fertile ground to attack Clark, Cullen & Co’s credibility in the coming weeks. And we know how Labour members respond when provoked!
February 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“another beer and ten bucks to spend on the races”
So this is what NZers can expect from the Chinese FTA
At least Owens is up front with this.
I wonder what his interests will get.
Am getting the feeling at $500,000 he got the bargain of the century
February 15th, 2008 at 11:44 am
It is a pity the Exclusive Brethren don’t issue a statement as to exactly what they published and when and with some rough costing or a statement of the total they did spend.
Each sitting of Parliament, after the Prayer, members make a bloody mockery of the sentiment of being ‘not jealous or conceited or proud, not ill-mannered, selfish or irritable, and not keeping a record of wrongs’, and it is sad the Exclusive Brethren mock Christ too by not rejoicing in the truth – but skulking around in the bloody shadows – they obviously believe about as much as that twit who is head of the Church of England.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Will the Owen Glenn business school profit from more liarbour skullduggery? I presume he will do rather nicely? What “irks” me, is the gummint already pay for Russell Brown and Lynn Prentice to act as propaganda puppets.
It always pays to scratch Aunty Helen’s back and puts a new meaning on the cliché jumping on the pig’s back. Maybe I should get a begging bowl and tell liarbour I will become a stool pigeon for them, just like all the other gravy train recipients. I couldn’t stoop so low.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
All very quiet on the Sonic, Nome, Tane and others front.
Rich pricks eh. Honours for cash ?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If Owen “Rich Prick” Glenn had his panties in bunch that much about a “level playing field” why didn’t he give $800,000 to National?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Murray
Human nature dictates that there is no such thing as a “level playing field”
It is one of the great socialist myths
February 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Liarbour’s interpretation of a ” level playing field” is simple. Miss Klark climbs Mount Helengrad and declares the ball game open just as the avalanche smoothers the opposing team that is located in the valley below.
More tilted madness from the unscrupulous.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Does anyone in the MSM in NZ bother to check the facts when they’ve got a story that fits THEIR preconceived narrative?
It’s about time something like THIS happened in NZ:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938403/posts?page=101,50
February 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
bwakile said “Human nature dictates that there is no such thing as a “level playing field”
It is one of the great socialist myths”
Put another way, you could say that we are all equal, but the Labour government is more equal than anyone else!
February 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Forgive me for banging on about the same links all the time, but these are important issues. Regarding the myth that the “right wing” enjoys a funding advantage over the left, READ THIS:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz012500.asp
February 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
sonic says: I’m pretty sure the fact that the Brethen were supporting the Nats came out before September 2005 David. … The Herals did have a full page ad on defence policy way, way before that, an I’m pretty sure their name was mentioned before that.
I don’t have access to Lexus Nexus at the moment, if one of our journo friends could do a quick search…
I did a ProQuest search (available on your local library’s website, probably) for “Exclusive Brethren” on the Fairfax newspapers for 2005 and apart from some “evil sect” pieces and one about Michael Laws slagging them off, there is nothing about the Brethren and politics until the leaflet controversy in September. Nothing in the NZ Herald either. So, BS.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Well said Yvette. I also certainly think that there are questions about exactly why the Government didn’t object to the defence leaflets, when they did over the later leaflets. Why didn’t they ram through their EFA in Mar 2005?
And all this talk about a level playing field is quite funny. Certainly making my day.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
PS there’s nothing in 2004 either.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
DC, I don’t recall it being in the newspapers – it was a leaflet drop in our PO Box.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Poor sonic, must’ve choked on a Scottish Thistle while partaking in lunch at the Tilted Field Restaurant.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Which would then suggest that Owen Glenn knew about the Brethren campaign before it was known by anyone else.
Other possibility:
Labour knew about the Exclusive Bretheren campaign from the start, they could easily have sources in the National Party and they chose to delay the public breaking of the story till just before the election for it to best serve their campaign.
Conversely it would make sense for them to also use the info to get funds out of their donors as soon as possible. And these were EB businessmen – a clannish bunch – most other NZ businessmen (including Owen Glenn) probably have dealt with and have reason not to trust much. The info that these were conspiring with the National party was probably good for a bit of Labour supporting on its own.
Maybe all this is proof of is that the National Party has less than adequate measures to protect its election strategising. And further proof (as if any were needed) that politicians making secret deals with less odious donors is a big problem – when they get caught.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Matthew, but there was no publicity given to the link between the Brethren and the advertising or any other political activity at the time, and at any rate Glenn’s monthly $100k donations started in 2004. When he announced the donations in May 2005 Labour Party president Mike Williams said “He likes Helen and thinks the country is heading in the right direction.” Is Glenn trying to distance himself from that a bit now?
February 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Come on people You must be thick or dumb blind to not realise that the Honours system like the political system in NZ has always been full of graft Knighthoods have been bought from political parties Cabinet posts have been bought by threatening to expose behaviour. You only have to look at the low level morals and ethics of the political class to know that this is situation normal for these cretins They know nothing else And their excuse is always the Well everyones doing it
Heh get over it Treat them just the dog turds on the soles of your shoes.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
They should be forced to eat dog turds as the dirty rats are sickening .
What a corrupt country run by criminals .
February 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Anyone heard of this “Kim RUSCOE” he must be a cub reporter if he couldn’t even arrange events in chronological order, then again his editor must be equally incompetent even people with only a passing interest in politics are aware that the GLEN gratuity eventuated long before any political activity by the brethren.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
So the Labour party got a massive cheque written out for their advertising, stole an additional $800K from tax payers, got another great fat interest free loan and still took almost 2 years to pay back the tax payers… Then they made up some new laws to stop big money from influencing elections.
Outrageous!
February 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Tane, Nome, Sonic – All missing in action or is it because its POETS
February 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
As tim barclay says, honours are bits of tin that (at least since we dropped Knight- and Damehoods, anyway) no one takes seriously. And as others have pointed out on many occasions, despite Labour’s claims to the contrary as the basis for introducing the EFA, money doesn’t sway elections nearly as much as one might assume (with a rare few situational exceptions I won’t waste a lot of space detailing here).
But a seat in Parliament and a place in Cabinet? A Minister potentially has a vast amount of influence on everything from the future of this country to which of his mates lands a lucrative government contract.
Glenn’s admission that Clark can hand this out like a gold star for being a good boy – over-riding what is supposedly a democratic selection process – is proof positive that Labour’s candidate selection procedure is corrupt and anti-democratic.
But they aren’t the only ones. Evidence has already been produced in court (in 1996) proving New Zealand First’s processes are corrupt and that list places can be bought.
I would wager no party could stand up to external scrutiny of its candidate selection but this is precisely what is needed if democracy is to be preserved. There needs to be a review of the foundations of democracy in NZ, considering our electoral and Parliamentary systems as an inter-related whole, not tinkering with one (via the MMP referendum) while allowing politicians to manipulate the other.
To start the process, Glenn ought to be asked if he’s prepared to swear an affidavit detailing the offer of a seat and a Cabinet post.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Rex Agree 100% with you Our candidate election system is totally without principles There is no transperancey or disclosure We are presented with a list and told to either vote or FOXTROT OSCAR Of course the MMP List is even worse in that we the voter have no say in the persons on the List
The USA for all its faults has a very much superior and democractic method,
Look at the process for the Primaries. Do I get to vote on whether Clark or Key should be the one nominated to stand for PM NO Why Not Come on all you Socialist demoncrats out there Why shouldnt I get the same democractic right to vote for who gets to stand for PM.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
For those with ADD and memory issues in fact Labour was busy having secret mettings WITH the EB at this time.
The fact that the EB’s shared their own money in a different direction was their real crime.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Rex, agree, again. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that socialists condemn, when it isn’t their side doing it. Hypocrisy is the norm.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
This rich arsehole has been promised something BIG, THIS RICH PRICK IS GOING TO SCREW US both sides,not helen the witch, toady lacky liarbor supporters Hes on the fast tract for something,JUST WAIT,it will happen, and be annouced
do you love RICH PRICKS, ps im a tradesman with the EPMU (printing)and i dislike the sort of rich prick that helen the (witch) attracts ie I hate monaco living RICH PRICKS ,HELEN REAL FRIENDS, opps hes given millions (tax deductions?) ,all i have done is train 5 apprentises recently , not in the same league as this RICHperson DARN
February 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
john
Labour are not keen on rich pricks – they denigrate them with great vigor – unless of course they donate to the Labour party. Then they are fine examples of the sort of people this country needs – especially in Parliament.
Owen Glenn makes John Key look like a begger (financially speaking) so imagine the abuse Dr. Cullen would hearl at him from his … ummm errr .. retirement home.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
So, let’s get this straight. Owen Glenn, Rich expat, chucks some money around to get a little influence and comes out with BS to explain it.
John Key, walks away from multi million dollar job, and goes in to the bear pit of parliament to REALLY give back, and get’s abused by Cullen to do it.
Why do people vote for Labour? I mean, really, why??
February 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Why do people vote for Labour? I mean, really, why??”
Reality distortion field.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
No MSM picked up this story yet. What is wrong with them?
February 15th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Why do people vote Labour? They dont want their welfare payments stopped or they feel sorry for poor people (aka misguided alturism).
February 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
we just had a whip round in today’s meeting and came up with two bottles of Speights, $45 and some change, a couple of uneaten pies and a programme from the 1983 4th Test against the Lions.
After ringing Clark’s office, I was told that with that lot all we could choose from is Womens or Youth Affairs. For $100 you can get Corrections.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Owen Glenn born in India and worth billions and John Key born in New Zealand and worth millions .
Who is the biggest rich prick? Maybe that could be a mastermind quiz question?
February 15th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
HELEN LOVES (((RICH))) INDIANS,(BRING THEM ON) the white NZ are SCUM,LAZY ,USELESS, WRONG COLOUR , appressors, pakeha maori killers, SCUM, bring on the chinese and the asians with this free trade deal ,HELEN DAVIS, DREAM , what shes sacrifised for , a country of asians (MY FREE THOUGHTS,THIS IS NZ IN THE NEAR FUTURE) do you lot trust this LIAR,, our pm????
February 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I also thought it interesting that Glen said we needed to drop anti-nuclear stance if we ever wish to progress an FTA with the US, something which I’ve previously also said. I like people that agree with me.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Owen Glenn (possibly) makes a mistake in recollection, or potentially even lies… and this is the fault of the Labour Party and/or government?
I will shortly be enjoying some excellent education in the fantastic building he funded for the Auckland University School of Business, and I’ll spend much less time – if any – questioning his motivation for the donation and plenty more time enjoying it.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
reid said “I like people that agree with me.”
So does Dear Leader! In fact, they’re the only people she likes!!!
I posted this over at The Average earlier in the day:
“Slightly off-topic, but what about Glenn’s call for New Zealand to adandon the anti-nuke legislation? Seeing as Clark and Co got a bee in their bonnet when National decided (quite rightly and belatedly IMHO) to support Nuke-free NZ, are they happy accepting the tainted money of a uranium supporter?”
They accused me of stirring – who, me??!!
February 15th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Inventory, see above… I guess Labour asked as many questions of Glenn as National initially did of the Brethren
February 15th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Mr Glen has chosen to donate to the Labour Party. So what? I can’t help but think you are feigning outrage because in your book anyone smart enough to be a business success would surely support “the other side”??
I read the Dom Post article – he also said something about Helen Clark having led the country well, that she seems (to him) to be genuinely interested in doing the best thing for the Country, and what you see is what you get with her.
Is it just too hard to hear these sentiments from a highly successful business leader???
PS: John – let me assure you that “The Asians” (1) bring a lot of money into this country, and (2) are very good in bed. Make love, not war!!!
February 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
God, good effort RRM did you enjoy him in bed, ps does he do a good curry,glen such a good indian name ??? JOHN sounds like russian, hell David Farrar sounds Australian
February 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“Mr Glen has chosen to donate to the Labour Party. So what?”
So what?
Well, sounds like he might just fit in so well with the crooks and cronyists that today represent the Labour Party.
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/OwenGlenn.htm
That’s what.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
damocles says:
“Kiwiblog has exposed another facet of our plans, drones!” said the Borg Queen (Uber-drone H3L3N).
“What must we do, oh Mistress?” chorused the Borg (under-drones of the SP1ND0KT0R class).
“Increase the warp (of the truth) factor to 11, fools!” shrieked the Queen, “the MSM have already been assimilated. That bolt through Espiner’s neck is barely noticeable, and Paul Henry seems no worse for having had his brain replaced by a GPS unit from my LTD. In fact it’s given him quite a personality. Set a course for the blogosphere and prepare to deploy the reality distortion field”.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Haha classic Rex, hahaha
February 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Redbaiter
Them links to Investigate – it’s just baseless allegations, the man is a saint – he supports Labour!
February 15th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
RRM
You should learn to read what is written and not assume what you want to see.
You said:
The quote was:
“adequate” – A bit like achieved…. “Well” is something completely different.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
RRM
As others have also noted.
Now how is this fitting with the Labour party – they still cling to the failed policies of the 80’s !
February 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
ummm…. the same policy that has failed so badly, National has been forced to adopt it?
February 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
RRM
Reading between the lines I’d say Owen Glenn is putting some distance between himself and the Labour party. The fact he mentioned he was offered a cabinet ministers position is close to the most damming thing he could have said about Labour.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
So clearly no plans for any major transport infrastructure projects in the past. Thankfully it’s an election year, the stadium was scuppered so it’s a flash new road for this election.
How’s the power supply looking this year ? Might be a good time to get commitment to some new power infrastructure? Lets allow the US ships back into AKL and when power is low we can use their massive generation capacity to take the load off our creaking power network…
February 15th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Rex Widerstrom said, at 2.51pm – “I would wager no party could stand up to external scrutiny of its candidate selection but this is precisely what is needed if democracy is to be preserved. ”
That is a wager that many involved in the selection of National Party candidates would confidently accept.
Every voting delegate in the candidate selection is a financial member of the Electorate concerned, and has been elected to that role by financial members of his/her respective branch, on the basis of one delegate per 20 financial members. Such election of delegates has been made at the branch AGM, or additionally at a special general meeting of branch financial members. The delegate must be a qualifying member of the represented branch.
The successful candidate, to represent the party, must win at least 50% of delegate votes , in progressive ballots, if not on the first, with the lowest polling candidate being removed from the next ballot.
No influence is made beyond the Electorate borders. Almost always the most electable candidate for the General Elections is chosen. An unpopular candidate would struggle with campaigning, and be punished on Election Day, particularly if there was any suggestion that he or she was selected on other than merit.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Cough, cough,Gerry lest we forget about the first round of the selection process for the National candidate for Selwyn -eh ?
I hope the RIGHT man is chosen?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
dad4justice – self-regulation by National overturned an irregular (bad) decision by less than competent electorate officials.
You are right to draw attention to this.
A valuable lesson in democracy.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Yes Gerry the ” less than competent electorate officials ” temporary caused considerbale unease, but were soon put in there place by the balanced hierarchy of the party .
I applaud Nationals honest selection process in the Selwyn Electorate.
Bloody pity Labour didn’t know the meaning of the word democracy!
February 15th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I meant considerable unease before the grammar Queens start .
February 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
d4j: I’ve gotten used to reading in gibberish. But if we are correcting, then we need temporary=temporarily, there=their, Nationals=National’s, didn’t=”doesn’t and never will, ’cause they are a bunch of commie bastards”
February 15th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Thank you PaulL, thank you for correcting my English. Not much use for it when working on a slaughterboard for twenty years.
A bunch of commie bastards indeed, and I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm,and three or more is a caucus.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Heh. Unfortunately sometimes that last applies to both sides of politics. Anybody who wants the job by definition shouldn’t have it…
February 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The Dom Post says:
“Born in India and raised in New Zealand, Mr Glenn now lives in Monaco.”
Monaco is a tax (free) haven.
A rich prick who pays no tax.
And Labour took $500K from him.
You sleep with dogs and you get fleas.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
If I may crudely say , since Helen seems to have been daggling a cabinet post to Owen Glenn in exchange for his generous donations can we all put in offers for cabinet posts? Will they be available on TradeMe?
For sale: post as minister of (fill in here).
Duties: Smile, wave, tell PM she’s the greatest
leader in history.
Responsibilities: None. You are responsible for nothing.
Everything is someone else’s fault.
Pay: Generous.
Period of service: Until around Nov 08. Position will be
terminated.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Off topic – for dad4justice only
A Mafia Godfather finds out that his bookkeeper has cheated him out of ten million bucks.
His bookkeeper is deaf, the reason that he got the job in the first place. It was assumed that a deaf bookkeeper would not hear anything that he might have to testify about in court.
When the Godfather goes to confront the bookkeeper about his missing $10 million, he brings along his attorney, who knows sign language.
The Godfather tells the lawyer “Ask him where the 10 million bucks is that he embezzled from me.”
The attorney, using sign language, asks the bookkeeper.
The bookkeeper signs back “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
The attorney tells the Godfather “He says he doesn’t know what you are talking about.”
The Godfather pulls out a pistol, puts it to the bookkeeper’s temple and says “Ask him again!”
The attorney signs to the bookkeeper “He’ll kill you if you don’t tell him where the money is!”
The bookkeeper signs back “O.K.! You win! The money is in a brown briefcase, buried in my cousin Enzo’s backyard in Queens!”
The Godfather asks the attorney “So what did he say?”
The attorney replies “He says you don’t have the balls to pull the trigger.”
February 15th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
haha – good one Gerry – power to the Don.
Keep cool too after school
February 15th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
the date inconsistencies occurred to me immediately on reading the paper at auckland airport this afternoon. how the dompost didn’t challenge them is beyond me.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Gavin
I completely agree with you, it’s almost like a torpedo fired from the good ship Glenn as Trotter’s new flag man comes rushing for the …. snap election!
I smell a coup.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Coup is in the air, ah ah argh ah Coup is in the air
The HMS Clarkistan has been holed with leftwing trotter powered exocet missile.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Cactus Kate: http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2008/02/owen-glenn-spills-red.html
Owen Glenn is only in it for Owen Glenn and Owen Glenn’s business interests.
He’s the kind of guy who fronts up with a cheque book for a political party and anyone sane in politics tells him to shove the cheque book up his ass as he has only business, not political principles.
That he has now reported these comments in the MSM says to me that he expects a change in Government very soon.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:37 am
And Clark very much wishing she could take back that gong now: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4403337a11.html
A spokeswoman for Miss Clark said yesterday that an alleged conversation in which, Mr Glenn claimed, he was offered a job as transport minister “never happened”.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Cactus Kate once again nails it in one and after reading her post I might take up wrestling. This just gets better for anybody who detests our cadaverous supreme leader. So I am to understand that Miss Klark has called Mr Glenn a liar because the transport portfolio was never offered to him. Who can believe a word that comes out of the PM’s mouth? She only fools the naive and disingenuous and her gutter tactics are bloody disgraceful as she constantly drags our integrity through the stinking mud.
Just imagine if Mr Glenn took the offered position? Harry the imported dutchman would have to take his finger out of the dyke to allow the Indian and his harem to settle in as Tranny Minister.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Seems DPF was correct when he suggested that perhaps Owen Glen was lying:
“He [Owen Glen] claimed that Prime Minister Helen Clark tried to lure him into politics to become Transport Minister.
Helen Clark said yesterday: “It never happened.”
Mr Glenn also suggested in an interview that his $500,000 donation to Labour before the 2005 election was prompted by concerns about the Exclusive Brethren campaign against Labour and the Greens.
But Labour Party president Mike Williams said that was not correct: “Owen is confused about the timing.”
Full link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10492791
February 16th, 2008 at 8:10 am
GPT1 “Shame of it is that politics aside he seems to be an the category of outstanding New Zealander.”
Bullshit. He is a thieving, lying shit. It’s no wonder that he feels at home in the Labour.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“She had suggested that with his background, he would be a sitter for the transport portfolio. He said he was not convinced because with all the major transport assets sold off to private owners, there would have been little for him to do.” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10492791
There seems to have been a certain amount of very specific consideration given, Helen, to an offer that never happened.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Is there room for weasel words here?
“It never happened” from Clark.
Is she saying the conversation with Glenn never took place?
Or that he never took up the offer?
February 16th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Gerry – More lies from Klark .
I know what I’d ask the Godfather to do for me.
How long can this criminal PM remain in power?
She makes the Mafia seem tame!
February 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am
This is rapidly turning pear-shaped for Labour – and Clark’s denials have a decidedly “hollow” ring to them!!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/hollow-woman-part-ii.html
February 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Maybe sonic, roger, Mr Brown or Tane could tell us all who is telling the truth ?
Lying about such serious matters is a criminal offence and surely the public deserve closure on this matter.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Fran O’Sullivan in this morning’s Herald is a must read.
Fran has, up to about six months ago, written complimentary items about Labour, but now the gloves are off and the cat fight starts.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:44 am
You’re not wrong Tauhei – here’s the link, to make things even easier for DPF’s fine readers!! This is NOT what Helen Clark was talking about when she told Cabinet she wanted things to be “relentlessly positive” this year. Ah well……….
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10492752
February 16th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Fran O’Sullivan said in her column
“But Glenn’s recollection of the conversation was sufficiently full”
yeah but his memory also tells him he donated that $500000 to Labour because of the EB
February 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
So, it’s now established that in the Labour Party lexicon you can buy a cabinet seat for $500k.
Begs the question … just how much does it cost to buy a Prime Minister … and have they?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Ross Miller Said: “Begs the question … just how much does it cost to buy a Prime Minister … and have they?”
I believe that costs about $800k of Tax Payers Money.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I see three issues here:
1. What Owen Glenn said – basically an idiot donor
2. Rank hypocrisy
3. The cash for gong, which Mike Williams lied about
Firstly, Owen Glenn is a Labour supporter, and one who donated a lot of money. I’m sure they went to visit him and he said that, being such a good Labour supporter, maybe he’d stand for parliament one day. They had a laugh together, and said if he stood he might even become a Minister – he clearly was more useful than the union stooges the Labour caucus is full of. And what sort of Minister – well, a Transport Minister of course. You can imagine the conversation, and it probably isn’t any different than the small talk that goes with any fund raising.
The problem is that Owen Glenn, in a fit of importance, decided to tell the media about it. He also thought he’d do Labour a favour by bringing up the EB again and suggesting not too subtly that real NZers donate to Labour and chinless scarf wearers donate to National. What he actually achieved was a massive own goal, demonstrating that he has no political nous at all, and you’d be stupid to ever let him stand for parliament. So far so not exciting – party has a supporter who is an idiot, could happen to anyone.
Secondly, I can’t feel sorry for Labour at all. They went to town on National for exactly the same thing with the EB, and Labour and their friends make a meal out of a few not particularly exciting e-mails that related to fund raising. At the time many, including DPF, pointed out that it was run of the mill party stuff, but Labour went on the attack. The hypocrisy of trying to defend this now is astonishing.
I hope that National continue to leave the media to do all the running on this. The media smell blood, and they knew the hypocrisy last time round, so they’ll go to town on Labour. National can keep their hands clean, getting into Labour about this would be hypocrisy on the National side, as well as not being needed. The occasional snide aside, however, would be entirely understandable
.
Finally, the bit that actually concerns me – the gong. This one Labour did to themselves. It was stupid to give their largest supporter a gong, and they almost got away with that. But lying about what he had donated to the party was really stupid. On that the Labour party are fair game, and I hope that National do them. It is clearly possible to accuse cash for honours, and the public hate that.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
If Mike Williams is correct that Owen Glenn couldn’t have donated half a million to counter the EB campaign, isn’t Glenn with his comments about the EB, someone Joris de Bres should be looking at – or Chris Carter, who is so keen that a group [Somalis] should not be demonised for the actions of one?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I do hope some reporter can get their krap together to ask Helen if she will reconsider the nuclear stance considering such a formidable businessman as Owen Glenn indicating what an impediment it is to New Zealand’s future.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Good point Puzzled! I always thought that discrimination on the grounds of religion was prohibited in New Zealand, and that was just what the office of the Human Rights Commissioner existed for – except of course when it is the government leading the discrimination!!
February 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
yes, the questions keep coming.
But don’t expect any fresh answers from the shallow woman.
After 8 years we have already heard them all.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
PaulL at 11.08am – very perceptive and credible appraisal.
Puzzled in Ekatahuna at 11.26am – quite so
Inventory2 at 11.59am – and didn’t Helen Clark, at Labour’s Annual Conference, either last year or the year before, announce an inclusive approach to Christian groups by Labour?
February 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Perhaps she meant Catholics.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m wondering when Nicky Hager will get around to writing his sequel. This time he doesn’t need stolen emails. He just needs to “steal” some of Owen Glenn’s time.
And I see Irish Bill over at “that other blog” prefers to attack Fran O’Sullivan instead of addressing the allegation that Mr Glenn was offered a ministerial post:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1123
February 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Oh, I should point out that “Kiwiblog talking points” was strikelined – an apparently witty rhetorical flourish from Irish Bill.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
And the Dom Post’s reaction in today’s issue…….hello?…….hello……? hello……?
February 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy said “I’m wondering when Nicky Hager will get around to writing his sequel. This time he doesn’t need stolen emails. He just needs to “steal” some of Owen Glenn’s time.”
POC – I’ve already posted on this, but at the risk of being labelled a link-whore like roger nome (where IS roger these days?), here it is, for your eyes only lol
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/hollow-woman-part-ii.html
I’ve also had a go at the good ol’ boys over at the Standard – IrishBill was moaning about people smearing the government!
““IrishBill says: so by “Literal or not” are you are implying you don’t care if it’s true or not but it’s a good chance to smear the government? I’m assuming you are a Herald subscriber?”
Bill – that’s pretty rich coming from one of the authors of a blog whose sole purpose seems to be to smear the National Party and its leadership. To use one of Robinsod’s favourite words, that’s – ironic – don’t you think?”
Those guys are the expert of the cheap smear, but in the immortal words of Lance-Corporal Jones in Dad’s Army – “the cold steel – they don’t like it up ‘em!”
February 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Yesterday at 12.50 PM I posted a link to an essay on the phenomenon of rich people in the US financially supporting Leftwing causes. The total substantially outweighs the funding of “right wing” causes, by the way – so much for the myths.
Several comments have been made above about “rich pricks” who actually support Labour in NZ, as if this is something surprising. Do read the essay. There are numerous reasons for “rich pricks” to support leftwing politics. They often have less to risk and more to gain. If they are seen supporting rightwing causes, they put voters off, and leftwing governments are notoriously mean-spirited towards rich supporters of their political opponents. Our own Klarkists and Kullenists being no exception.
As Don Brash (a notoriously naive politician), found out, the road to power for anyone identified with the wealthy “right wing” is blocked with almost insurmountable obstacles, thanks to the kneejerk reactions of our left-dominated MSM. It is in fact much easier for “rich people” who are out to feather their OWN nests via political power, to make devil’s bargains with the main LEFT wing party. Don Brash and John Key, on the other hand, and in fact MOST “rightwingers” have genuine desires to bring about real improvements in the whole country, that will benefit everyone.
This phenomenon is seen strikingly in George Soros and other super rich supporters of leftwing causes in the US and internationally. Note that Leftwingers statistically are far less generous regarding CHARITABLE causes than Rightwingers, at EVERY INCOME LEVEL, but ESPECIALLY among the most wealthy. (“Who Really Cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism”. Look it up on Amazon yourself.) But they DO GIVE a LOT MORE to POLITICAL causes.
Basically, they have realised long ago that the march of soft leftist propaganda through society has blocked their chances of achieving any sort of political influence via traditional rightwing parties. They certainly do not care about the continuance of conditions and freedoms that will enable OTHERS to become wealthy too, in fact they would prefer others to be locked out of their exclusive “club”. Even more beautifully, they get much more credit from the Left by supporting the Left financially, than they would ever get from any amount of outright charitable good works and helping the poor. The very cause they support, stands for the financial support of the poor with taxation gouged out of the hardworking MIDDLE CLASS – NOT THEM. THEIR billions are securely locked away in Monaco or the Bahamas.
But as long as the Left controls journalism and the other “institutions’ of society, the ignorant masses will have views of the wealthy people ion each side of the political divide that do not reflect reality, all the more convenient for the political parties who stand to benefit thereby in terms of power and the advancement of their program.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“roger nome (where IS roger these days?)”
I do believe that roger is working as a cabin boy on a yacht in the Caribbean, while the owner guzzles socialist champagne and eats curry favoured psychotropic snails.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Advice to Owen Glenn, if he has fallen out with Helen now.
Go and talk to Mike Moore and John Tamihere. Start a “Real Labour” Party that stands for the hardworking poor, not for social engineering and creeping Communisation. Tell the hardworking poor that they should vote for you, because you will cut their taxes, and that you will lower their energy costs and living costs by showing that you care more about THEM than some environmental utopia based on Gaia worship. You will get new hydro dams done, and a nuke power plant or two if it is rational to do so.
You will dump the Kyoto protocol madness that will condemn them to rising living costs, taxation, and destroy the economic growth that is their best chance of a future. You will build new roads, not force them to limit their capacity both to be productive and to contribute to society by forcing them to use public transport. You will reduce their home ownership costs MASSIVELY by freeing up the supply of land.
I could suggest a whole lot more, but we desperately need a movement that is not tainted (unfairly) in the eyes of the voter, with associations with the “greedy rich”, and that will APPEAR, (rightly), to be doing these things FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE POOR, not the “rich”. John Key and just about anyone the Nats could come up with as leader, couldn’t get away with it, hence, they aren’t even trying to. Mike and John, and a team of good solid grassroots NZ citizens, probably can.
Think about it – Owen.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Inventory2: [out of interest, is Inventory1 your other - and better - half?
]
Thanks for your link. I’ve read it and entirely agree with your sentiments.
Comments in Fran O’Sullivan’s column of concern:
Any particular reason (other than divine political intervention) why he was so forthcoming with Kim Ruscoe, but a day or so later, was incommunicado?
And those at “the other blog” need to attack Kim Ruscoe as well. Does she have an excitable imagination as well? Is she a journalist with NZ Herald affiliations, and therefore subject to the “attack Labour” rule that the Standardistas claims has been issued?
Then this:
Why Minister of Transport, I wondered to myself, before realising that OTS Logistics just happens to be *cough* a freight forwarding business. Now while that in itself may raise eyebrows, the potential overlapping (and conflicting) interests are so obvious as to make it surprise (to me anyway) that Clark would offer such a position to Glenn.
Oh, and on your other point about Phillip John/Roger Nome, his idea of link-whoring is it goes like this: “I say this and here’s the proof [link to Kiwiblogblog attack sheet]. You’ll find this interesting [link to Wikipedia]. Here, educate yourself [link to Phillip John's blog]. This proves blah blah blah [link to Wikipedia]“. Now, I and several others have followed a few (not all, mind you) of his links – and been prompted to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Inventory2, the thing with Hager’s sources of stolen E-mails is, they have the resources of the agencies of the PM’s office behind them, not against them.
February 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy said “Inventory2: [out of interest, is Inventory1 your other - and better - half?
]”
A former incarnation of myself POC, who only frequents the Whale’s den now, as well as a couple of sporting sites.
February 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Good news for ALL New Zealanders – the Waiouru medals have been recovered
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/good-news.html
Announcing this won’t do Phil Goff’s stocks any harm – should be an awesome BBQ at his palce tonight!
February 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
D4J (2:36) – “Roger… the cabin boy?”
February 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
COME on what do you think liarbors promised this tax dodging rich prick , probably his company will run the toll roads? HUGE profits to shift back to that tax haven monaco.glen a GOOD friend of helen davis ,weasels that scamper around together.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
D4J welcome back
February 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I suspect that Owen’s only motivation for supporting helen was to get the FTA with China through. There is a lot of money to be made moving freight around the globe.
His motivation was clear when he said that we should get rid of our anti nuke stance to open the door to a FTA with USA.
I think he would support FTA’s anywhere anytime and doesn’t really give a toss who runs the country.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hi john good to be back. I hope we are going to get a new gummint this year because this is one is a bloody shambles. Heads must roll over this one mate. When will it go snap ?
Cheers dude.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
this one is a bloody shambles for those who can’t read gibberish .
February 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Phil Best:
That’s not my perception of the wealthy Phil, do you have evidence they want others to be locked out? Personally I think they’ve just learned how to play the game, which is simple. You only need to get yourself obsessed with it – focus on it, all the time, hold the specific amount you want at front of mind all the time. Be very specific and very dedicated to holding that focus, all the time. Of course you have to combine that with specific and dedicated action, but that comes naturally if you hold that focus long enough. Becoming wealthy is not rocket science, and if you study wealthy people, what I said above is what they all have in common. The problem with many is that they think they can’t do it, for whatever reason – they’re not clever enough, they’re not entitled to it, it will isolate them from their friends, the list is endless. Most people are comfortable, they get by, they have their pleasures, and so there is little to no pressure on themselves to change their circumstance.
Look at Hart, for instance. Do you think that while he was a towie that he wasn’t thinking about his next move, with a specific objective? My point is, that you can do it just as well as anyone else. It’s only an exclusive club because most people don’t.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Around the time the America’s cup challenge was on in AKL an ‘unnamed’ billionaire was in trouble for having a considerable quantity of marijuana on his boat. He was described as a ‘highly functional pot head’ who lives on his super yacht…. Any connection ?
If so… perhaps Helen could use the ‘under the influence’ defense for her offer… that didn’t happen.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
d4j – it is nice to see you back. And you seem to have stopped taking your angry pills whilst you were away, so your comments are quite easy to understand. Keep up the good work and we’ll see you around more regularly!!
I am very concerned about whether we will actually get a new government. In theory we should – NZers in general have had a gutsful of this one, and the media are reflecting that in starting to ask the hard questions that Helen has avoided for the last 8 years.
The problem is that I don’t yet see the viable coalition, and I don’t yet see National fully presenting as a government in waiting. John K has done a good job of pulling it together, and I presume is keeping his tinder dry for the upcoming election season. But they do have a history of choking at the last hurdle (a bit like the All Blacks in that sense), and I’m not sure whether the team will manage to stay on message to the end without making some amateur mistake.
I also don’t want to see a one term government. Even were the poll ratings to turn into an election result, it would be unheard of to keep those votes going into the next term. National needs a coalition partner in order to go more than one term.
ACT will be there, but in a sense they are a bit like Jim Anderton – you can pretty much just count them in the National total, and without some change I doubt that they will be more than a couple of percent of the vote. National need to allow them to retain their electorate seat – if they can do it for Peter Dunne they sure as hell can do it for their most reliable partner in parliament.
Winston First is a conundrum. Ideally he would be out of parliament, and if National could be sure it would work they should encourage that outcome. The problem is that if they go in hard against Winston, and the wily old bugger manages to hold on, then he will support Labour. That would be a big problem. I’m not sure what the realistic chances of him ever supporting National again would be, but I don’t see how National can take that risk. Ideally Labour and National would make a pact to go hard after him just to get rid of him – but I can’t see any way they could get together and do it without one of them reneging on it (despite it being in both their best interests).
United will be interesting. I think Peter Dunne will go with the largest party, which will be National. Irrespective of what you think about Peter himself, he represents a constituency that have a voice. National can easily work with him, as could Labour. The key is to get him to publicly state that he will go with the largest party (not the largest grouping) after the election.
The Maori party are in theory very possible, but in practical terms National and Maori vote the same on about 25% of legislation, Labour and Maori about 60%, Green and Maori about 90% (or numbers something like that, can’t remember them exactly). Relying on the Maori party to form a government is a high risk option. The question is how much of that legislation they really cared about, v’s just voting with the government because they support the govt. So if they came in with National, would they then vote 75% the same as National? High risk.
Green – never happen. Again, in theory if the greens could get their green agenda implemented then they would go with National. In reality they want social legislation that National shouldn’t support. Their new leader Russell is more in the Sue Bradford mold than the Jeanette Fitzimmons mold. I can’t see them going with National. That leads to an interesting question – should National play nice with them, or target them?
My thoughts are:
– play nice with ACT – what do National care about an electorate seat?
– play nice with United – they will be needed
– go hard against Winston – he is unreliable, and if he fails to reach the threshold then his votes effectively get split in proportion between the remaining parties. National is the biggest party, so gets the biggest benefit. If he gets in and goes with Labour, then Labour get the benefit of all his votes
– play nice with the Maori party. They will get the electorate seats either way, and playing nice may pick up some of the party votes from those people. No downside in playing nice, and may work out well
– play nice with the greens. Unlikely that they wouldn’t make 5%, and every vote they get comes from Labour. Attacking the greens won’t really get National votes, it will just drive green voters to Labour. Letting the greens do OK will hold down Labour’s vote, and allow National to be the largest party.
This would then make a National/ACT/United Future coalition possible, with Winston out of parliament, and Maori supporting on issues of common interest. This could be very stable for a number of elections.
If this happened, then Labour would self destruct – all their senior folk would leave. I doubt Phil Goff really has the stomach for 6 years in opposition, so the question is who would take the leadership. I would see them going the way of the Libs in Australia – a period of working out what they really stand for and shaking themselves free of all the dirt that comes out once you’re out of power. In my opinion that would be a great place for NZ politics to be.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“reid”, I am talking specifically about those “rich pricks” who support Leftwing, big government, regulatory regimes that yes, lock the masses out of becoming “rich”. I specifically mention that most supporters of “right wing” policies actually want the best for their country. It is those that support leftwing causes and political parties that actually have their eye on their OWN future at the expense of everyone else.
The old Marxist saw about “the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer”, is actually only true in regulatory environments. What you say about becoming rich if you want to, working to a goal, is true in itself, but notice that SINCE people like Hart become wealthy, the obstacles to getting started on the process, have increased. The RMA. Employment law. Property prices (a legacy of restrictive zoning). How many potential Harts or James Watties have been locked out of the process?
Hernando DeSoto, in “The Mystery of Capital”, calls this effect “The Glass Bell Jar”. Less well-off people are on the outside looking in, unable to break in, not because of a “wealthy right wing plot” to exclude them, but because of leftist-oriented regulatory environments and compliance costs.
Do you see my point?
But there is a new thread about Owen Glen now. Let’s let this argument redevelop there.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
PaulL
National could engineer a very strong result with actively polling “party vote National – Electorate vote ACT” OR “Electorate vote National, party vote ACT”. Especially in their traditional strong electorates. Why not campaign “Party vote National, electorate vote Maori” in the electorates where they support the individual Maori party MP’s?
Do they have the balls to campaign for a coalition or will they “Two ticks National” again this year?
February 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
PhilBest
It’s intriguing when you read ‘Cactus Kate’ had to say about him, his tax situation etc. To think a man who has structured his affairs to avoid paying tax supporting a govt increasing taxation in a country with very low wealth thresholds. Fascinating that somebody would support the infliction of circumstances on others that they wouldn’t have for themselves.
I think Labour have some explaining to do.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Thanks Phil, I love DeSoto, he’s a genius.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
burt: I’m not sure about electorate vote ACT. I definitely cannot see National campaigning party vote ACT – that would be simply stupid. Both of these though carry overtones of trying to game the system – driving an overhang. I don’t think that kiwis like that kind of thing much.
However, the Maori party has always been an electorate only party. Effectively they are also gaming the system, but the nature of the Maori seats seem to make people more accepting of it. I can imagine campaigning for electorate vote Maori, party vote National in the Maori seats – again, nothing to lose in doing so.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Off the topic, sorry but I need some help here. Every time I post at the standard I am now informed that my posts are subject to moderation. Does this mean I have been a naughty boy? Are they legally allowed to pass my email onto third parties? I’m not getting paranoid but it would be nice to know.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Murray, it is punishment for visiting or posting at the Standard. What were you thinking?