NRT on Owen Glenn
NRT smells something nasty in relation to the Monaco consul offer:
This stinks, even worse than Glenn being awarded a gong in the New Year’s honours list. “Honorary consul” isn’t much – I’m not sure if it even comes with a salary – but by even contemplating awarding such a position to their biggest donor, the government has created the impression that government office is for sale in this country. And in doing so, they’ve instantly dragged us back to the institutionalised corruption and patronage of the eighteenth century. FFS, that’s what the Americans do, and we ought to at least think we’re better than them.
Unless the Government is suicidal, I suspect they will not now be appointing him Honorary Consul. And to be fair, he have no one to blame but himself. Glenn has transformed himself over a few days from Labour’s saviour to Labour’s walking cluster bomb.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Let’s float a few opinions of our own;
Owen Glenn bankrolled Labour and NZ First.
he makes a few loud and embarrassing pronouncements to let Helen and Winston he wants payback.
They need to shut him up.
He gets bought off with Honorary Consulate of Monaco.
Ergo – The Labour Party and NZ First are Owen Glenn’s Bitches.
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/
February 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Yeah Lee C – The NZ First angle interests me.
Any evidence?
February 20th, 2008 at 7:15 am
He sounds like a bumbling old man. Doesn’t know when to stop kidding around…
“Honorary Consul” is just that – it’s not a government position, it doesn’t involve money.
Should the fact that he donated money to the Labour party invalidate the other things he’s done for New Zealand and the community when it comes to being awarded Honors or Honorary Consul of Monaco? Perhaps. I’m not in the position to make the call. But from what I can tell of Owen Glenn he’s not the big scumbag everyones making him out to be…
February 20th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Chris S. It’s not Owen Glenn who is the scumbag. It’s Clark, Williams and likely Peters.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Big Mike W wouldn’t look out place on the TV series the Sopranos, because he looks like a mobster in therapy having problems with his mother Helengrad and his demented father Winny the Pooh.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:49 am
” what the Americans do, and we ought to at least think we’re better than them.”
haha, how arrogant we are.
But good on NRT for returning to the sort of blogging that is happy to put the boot into anyone who annoys them – now if only he would put the boot into his preferred party, the greens – maybe something about the stupid bio-fuels idea.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Monaco – a sunny place for shady people.
No salary as far as I know, rather rich people get the post and tend to have meet expenses from their own pocket. It’s a vanity position.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:00 am
“Honorary consul” isn’t much – I’m not sure if it even comes with a salary
Maybe so. But it would look good on his business card and increase his gravitas on the champagne circuit.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Lee C
I am also very interested in the NZ First angle.
I hope someone will investigate the “bauble taker’s” finances a little further
February 20th, 2008 at 8:10 am
So much for the “slow decline of NRT” – you’ll quote it when it suits you, so I suppose Mr. Farrare you accept the term “Kiwiblog right” as well now?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Any bets on how long before the secret donors of the Waitemata oand other trusts are reveled.
Should be a easy excercise for a competent hacker to gain entry and revel Nationals secret donors.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:14 am
John Dulley; any bets on how long before the secrets of Helengrad come out ?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Wishart’s revelations suggest there may be a lot more to this than is obvious. As a former Income Tax Inspector the story suggests Glenn is living beyond his apparent means. If he is involved with others accused in banking fraud is he really what he seems? The Honorary Consul position is not without value; when I was working overseas that would have gained me ready access to the Head of State’s parties and others of the diplomatic corp. Small beer; but in a world of pretence useful for contacts and influence.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Any bets on how long before the secret donors of the Waitemata oand other trusts are reveled.
Wonder what your response would be if it is found that it is only a depository account for national Party members fees….
Should be a easy excercise for a competent hacker to gain entry and revel Nationals secret donors.
That would be an illegal act. Dont tell me Labour party supporters are now condoning illegal acts to help them get re-elected? Btw, this is my shocked font.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The story of Owen Glenn’s involvement in bringing Labour back to power is an interesting one. Born in India 66 years ago, his parents returned to England soon after, before emigrating to New Zealand when Glenn was six. According to a brief biography in the NZ Herald last year, he attended Auckland’s Mt Roskill Grammar before leaving at 15, in 1955, to join Tasman Empire Airways Ltd, or TEAL, the forerunner of Air New Zealand, as a cargo handler. He left the country in 1966 to seek his fortune, and hasn’t returned to live since. He is listed, variously, as a resident of Australia and the United States.
- http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/02/owen-glenns-sha.html
Glenn celedrating his 60th birthday yesterday, so 66 is wrong, Ian.
But just what constitutes an ‘ex-pat’ to qualify under the rules of the EFA to be able to donate anything now to Labour?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:43 am
John Dalley
Repeat after me, one syllable at a time … A … NON … Y … MOUS. Now loo it up in your nearest dictionary.
Do you get the picture?
Anonymous means ….. well …. anonymous.
Just ask Dr Cullen who yesterday abandoned all the BS about National knowing who their anonymous donors are and admitted that they were ANONYMOUS and along with that must forgo any suggestion that there could be anything (policies, gongs, contracts, mutual back scratching, hot sex or hot bondage) in return.
Compare and contrast with Labour and Mr Glenn who made it quite clear who was standing up to be rewarded.
And to top it all off Helen says she was not invited to the birthay party at Soul Bar. They would have really missed her sparkling wit and one liners I’ll bet.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:46 am
D4J. Think Waitemata Trust (and others) details reveled in the last months before the election.
Any bets on the possible damage to National.
Bevan.
Illegal act or not, National has hidden behind secret funding for years and then has the gaull to feign rightiousness in Parliment. Remember all information gets out at some time, may even already be known by the likes of Nicky Hager and his like.
Could make embarressing reading for National.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Chicken Little … re the NZF connection. THe only evidence that I know of at this stage is the ascertion by Glenn that he donated to other parties.
But what we do know is that NZF had problems in raising the $150 to [pay back the money they rorted from the taxpayer (and which they still have sitting in some bank account earning interest). Their electorate structure is virtually non existent and their membership way way down.
But suddenly, low and behold, the money appears.
The cash for honours bit is I think stretching the bow just a little although Glenn’s ‘donations’ to Labour certainly wouldn’t have countered against him at the Honours & Appointments Committee..
The cash for jobs thing really interests me and NZF need to come clean over whether Glenn donated to them also.
Because if they don’t its a truism in politics that perception quickly becomes reality and right now the perception is that Winston First has something to hide.
As for Glenn. Sure an Honorary Consulship isn’t a huge bauble as baubles go (not as good as Minister anyway) buit I guess it does look nice on your businesscard for someone who sure seems to crave attention.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am
John Dalley … does your rightous indignation over anonymous donations to National extend to the anonymous donations received by Labour including, heaven forbid, money from Trusts?
Or are you just parroting the 9th Floor Party line?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Cheers Ross – Interesting to see developments in the next few weeks.
Their electorate structure is virtually non existent and their membership way way down.
I know you have to have 500 paid up members to register a political party. Is that ongoing? Do you have to prove paid up membership at each election? If so can anyone point me towards the info?
I’m on child duty today otherwise I’d try to find it myself.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
“D4J. Think Waitemata Trust (and others) details reveled in the last months before the election.”
Look Dulley, I don’t think the pissed off voter could care if National receives a trillion dollars from anonymous donations to help them win the election, because everybody that is not the Liarbour gravy train is totally HAD IT with the disgraceful government that is dishonouring everybody. Just look at the state of our health system and appalling child abuse statistics.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:33 am
John Dalley – another who believes it’s OK to bend electoral law over the couch and roger it, just so long as it’s done by the Labour Party. Change the record, you tosser (or is it tossier?)
February 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
One line that hasn’t yet been picked up: the Herald reported on Friday that Owen Glenn will receive his ONZM from the Queen, personally, at Buckingham Palace on June 11. It would be fascinating to see if any Ministers, or the Prime Minister, were involved in pulling strings to pull this off.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Random garbage John Dalley. Anonymous means anonymous, and those donors are anonymous to protect themselves, not to protect the National party. You’re trying to stir up excitement about nothing.
Labour, however, are guilty of a bunch of things here, and the public will not be happy.
I am starting to come around to the Cactus Kate line of thinking – Owen Glenn can’t be that stupid, so he must be cunning like a fox. He got Labour in trouble, it was pretty embarrassing for them, he lets it almost die down, then does it all over again over the honorary consul thing. He couldn’t have been so dumb as to not know what would happen, surely he did it deliberately. But why? Did he not get everything he was promised? Is he now disillusioned with the Labour party?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Illegal act or not, National has hidden behind secret funding for years and then has the gaull to feign rightiousness in Parliment.
Correct me if Im wrong, but up until the EFB came into law, using trust accounts was perfectly legal?
Remember all information gets out at some time, may even already be known by the likes of Nicky Hager and his like.
Could make embarressing reading for National.
Yes all information does come out over time, like say stating that you have not received a donation from someone who you have just given an award to when he has in fact donated…
Careful what you wish for Mr Dalley, Im sure Labours closet has a few skeletons too. At least Nationals got an airing before the election year.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Chicken Little to answer …. S71A of the Electoral Act requires each Party Secretary to make a Statutory declaration by 30 April annually that the Party continues to meets the requirements required for registration by having at least 500 memebers and internds contesting the next election.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:54 am
PaulL, your thinking is way off beam.
Glenn went public on the Consul matter well before the Trasnport Minister gaff – interview with NZ Herald Jan 3rd.
Pity in its haste to whip up hysteria that the Herald can’t even remember what it reported last month (cudos to RB over at Public Address).
Where were English, Key, DPF and you lot back then? On holiday snooze? What’s changed? Talk about flogging a dead horse.
The reason the whole Glenn saga is news is because of his complete transparency (and idiocy).
If the same degeree of transparency emanated from the right I wonder what juicy titbits would be revealed?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Anonymous donations for any political party is not a good look.
Even if not true, anonymous donations lead to the purceived look of buying political favour.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Labour politicians and supporters seem to accuse National loudest of crimes that they themselves are guilty of. This “sticks and stones throwing” has National expending energy on defence rather than attack, and nullifies counter-attack as “they did it too” childishness which the public dislikes.
Owen Glenn is doing the voting public a huge favour in revealing the extent to which the Electoral Finance Act has been designed to advantage the Labour-led Government.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Ah yes, Glenn’s an idiot. Keep flinging that mud, Mickey…
February 20th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Undeclared interest free loans are pretty fucking dodgy, John.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Buggerlugs, he clearly is a fool and a classless one at that.
With his alleged sack full of money he could have chosen anywhere for his birthday bash.
But Soul????
He clearly lacks judgement.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Ah, Soul.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
If Owen Glenn can donate 7.5 million to an Auckland Business School
and is himself worth several hundred million…
THEN ISN’T HE EXACTLY THE BIG BUSINESS, “RICH PRICK” TYPE THAT LABOUR HAVE ACCUSED NATIONAL OF TAKING ANONYMOUS DONATIONS FROM?
The hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff. ~Ambrose Bierce
February 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
If “Glenn is an idiot” is the answer. What was the question again?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Fool he might be, but he can buy and sell you lot of low grade moaners.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am
democracymum, you are absolutely correct other than one simple thing. Glenn’s contributions have never been anonymous.
How could they ever be with the way he shoots off his mouth!
That’s why people can now debate openly whether his money has influenced govt decision making. All will make up their own minds on that with varying outcomes.
That’s democracy at work.
Shame that major financial contributions to National can’t be identified to allow the same critical process to be undertaken.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am
David Slack has a good line on the honorary consul:
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4814.sm#post4814
February 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hang on a minute …
Fundraisers work on commission. So who was paid the money? What was the $100,000 for? That is a lot of money. Was it described as a loan at the time it was incurred, or was it just dressed up as a loan afterwards.
Still some unanswered questions here.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Mickey D – Glenn’s contributions may not have benn anonymous, but dipstick Mike Williams obviously thought they were a well kept secret when he lied about “no other donations since 2005″. Oooops.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:58 am
# John Dalley Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Fool he might be, but he can buy and sell you lot of low grade moaners.
Now that is an interesting comment from a socialist. A rich prick is OK if he can buy and sell people who disagree with the government. Especially one who does not live in NZ and lives in a tax haven. Tax haven, a place you go to avoid paying taxes, an then donate to socialist governments to enslave the poor and stop them accumulating wealth. Very egalitarian.
Funny, I thought the buying and selling of people was called slavery. Slavery is illegal. Does Mr Dalley condone slavery? Well he must, as this government is seeking to turn all of us into beneficiary slaves, who perforce are the serfs who have no choice but to keep voting Labour.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Oh, I’m just resigned to the Clarkists having 30 to 40 % of NZ-ers support no matter what they do. This latest scandal in a long line of scandals will make no difference.
Putin can even be implicated in the murder of political opponents and still retain his 60 – 70 % popularity. So NZ isn’t that far gone yet.
I keep telling DPF that he is too unserious about what we are up against in the creeping takeover of society by the Socialists. How about THIS suggestion, DPF? Would it shock you to think that YOU and Bernard Darnton and Ian Wishart could all be suspiciously murdered over a period of several months, and the NZ cops find no culprits, and Helen Clark still retains power in the next election?
I don’t mean to insinuate that Clark and Co have yet sunk all the way to Putin’s level, but what I WOULD like to know, is what proportion of NZ-ers would remain unaffected in their mindless, mesmerised support for Clark if it did happen? Because if what has happened already isn’t enough………..
February 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
And more sensibly, remember what happens to a National government or politician who gets caught out in a mere fraction of the sort of stuff that the Clarkists have cot away with.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I have to say that John Dalley does have a point Anyone who believes that ‘anonymous” means that in the tiny village that is New Zealands political and business world is niave in the extreme. As one who has been around the business scene since the early 70s its a very small place and modestly I have been ‘told” things that were ‘anonymous” and kept my own counsel when it was appropriate.
But stuff leaks and I must say in this new fangled tech world leaks a hell of a lot faster and wider than it did in the good old days. Then a juicy bit might take 2 to 3 days to go from Featherston St to Queen St. Now it seems to only take 2 to 3 seconds.
As regards money for gongs us old timers know in the old days Sir So and So really got his for donating to whatever party rather than for ‘Services to the Community”
Is it wrong Is it immoral Is it unethical Sure is Especially when the enemy is caught doing it. Then its all on
So let those on Right may hay while the sun shines.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
gd: if the electronic village is so small and stuff leaks, why don’t the whiners on the left have details to post here?
February 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Shame that major financial contributions to National can’t be identified to allow the same critical process to be undertaken.
Maybe they dont want the kind of vindictive retribution Labour is known for in regard to anyone who doesnt support them.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Ross Miller – Is there a publicly accessible register of these declarations?
Do they list actual party members?
Does the Party Secretary file them with the Electoral Commission?
Are they checked by whoever they are filed with?
Or can you point me to this information?
Cheers.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
gd says: “I have to say that John Dalley does have a point. Anyone who believes that ‘anonymous” means that in the tiny village that is New Zealands political and business world is niave in the extreme.”
Yes, but Labour has received many hundreds of thousands if not millions of anonymous donations over the years, including right up to last year, so it is silly for them to attack National over this point, when they have been doing the same thing.
Labour’s argument seems to go something like: “We lied about getting a loan from Owen Glenn, but that’s OK because National gets anonymous donations, but we do too but that’s OK.” This is quite a weak argument.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
As an aside –
Hilarious over at The Standard, to see how their threads are now filled with The Standard authors and their little friends all agreeing with each other, with hardly a dissenter to be seen. They’ve been welding the banning stick regularly lately and I would guess that many others just can’t be bothered going there anymore.
Anyway, perfect for any noobs going to have look, after recent publicity, to see an almost perfect echo chamber with just about every link, backing up whatever line they’re running, to a Standard post or one from KBB.
Keep up the good work The Standard – excellent at mediocrity.
Hmmmmm Sounds like Labour.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
george If the President and Secretary of ANY political party say that dont know who their major donors are I would have to question their honesty and ask them to submit to a lie detector test which they will fail.
I mean they aint give a written list but word is passed.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
A bit off-topic, but lie detectors are a joke everywhere except in the US, where for some unfathomable reason some stock is placed in the veracity of their results.
They are more technological than the medieval ordeals by fire & water used to “prove” witchcraft, but they are not a lot more accurate.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Also – Russel Brown points out that the Honorary Consulship is a voluntary post; if so it’s hardly a “bauble” is it?
February 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
gd: if you believe that to be the case, submit a complaint. It is illegal for any of those people you mention to know that information, get them into court under oath and ask them.
Again I say, if this is such commonly known information, why do I never see it posted anywhere? If it were known I believe that the lefty hacks would be splashing it everywhere.
I seem to recall last year someone tried it and turned out to be making shit up – a bunch of it was categorically denied by the people concerned, and they provided pretty solid rationales for why it couldn’t be true.
Basically you are alleging something that cannot be known one way or another, and your entire case is “it must be true because it is obvious.” That isn’t an argument, if that is the only argument you have for your belief then I suggest you should take a hard look at whether it is a rational belief.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
For Chicken Little ….. suggest you acccess the following link to the Electoral Commission which will give you the answers ….
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/how_register_party.htm
You will note two new parties applied for registration last month; the Kiwi party and the NZ Pacific Party.
I think the system is open to abuse particularly in the case of minor parties. The Commission accepts a person can be counted as a member for up to three years and that in itself is an interesting proposition – people die; people change their allegience; people become inelligible and I suspect that for minor/fringe parties their administrative systems are such that the Party Secretary is probably ‘touching wood’ when they make their Statutory Declarations.
Hope this helps
February 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Adam. Stop being a twat. i made no mention of slavery.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
PaulL. If Labour or friends has such info, why would they reveal it yet.
Something nice and juicy about 6 weeks out should be about perfect timing.
George. How old are you? Google party donations, and you will find figures for the last 3 – 4 elections.
If you look at those figures, you will see Glenn made a $200.000 and a $300.000 before the last election. Then look at Nationals donations anonymous and not, have a look for a previous Act secret donations, it was something like 3 million dollars.
So ask the the question, who made these donatiions and how much. What might they have got for their money!
And remember Labour has also received anonymous donations and quite correctly the question could also be asked of them.
The Rabid Right can go on all they like about Glenn but the favct remains that he was up front about them.
The buying of privilage
/influence has been going on for years and some of it not too secretive.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
JD – I don’t think OG’s openness is being questioned here. In fact, if it wasn’t for his openness, Clarks and Williams’ lies would not have been exposed for us all to see.
As is so often the case, it’s not so much the crime but it’s the attempted coverup that is the problem. Labour are now finding that it doesnt pay to lie or coverup – that’s what all the voters are now talking about.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Dalley, you said he could buy and sell people. I merely drew a long bow for the purposes of debate.
I assume that you agree that it is somewhat surprising that Labour should be so reliant on a donor who pays little if any tax, here or elsewhere. Or is it OK to be a rich prick if you are a supporter of this regime?
I am against secret donations to any party.
Am I to assume from your last post that you assume
a) Glenn has bought privileges
b) was/is seeking to buy privileges
c) both of the above
and that as you think this has been going on since the dawn of time that this is OK?
February 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
paull I respect your right to believe what you wish but proving and knowing are 2 different things.
If I ‘overhear” a conversation in a corridor and then ‘forget” I overheard it its gonna be pretty darn hard for a brief to to nail me in Court.
Just as there are plenty of ways to skin the cat so there are plenty of ways for ‘information’ to pass from one party to another.
And its not as thoiu we are dealing with the ethical and moral highest ground here either
February 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Oh by the way PaulL In my submission to the SC disclosure was one of my major points IMHO the counter arguements are a smoke screen
They are another governance problem that needs to be tackled not run away from as so many governance problems are in this country of ours.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
GD: I would rather there weren’t anonymous donations, and would have supported them being removed (to a threshold – say $2,000 per person or something). Labour for their own reasons didn’t do that.
Nevertheless, I also understand why many would be very concerned about the Labour government knowing that they were National supporters, or even were friends with National supporters. It turns out that can negatively impact your career.
If we are tackling this though, we need at the same time to tackle the influence the union movement has, the way they automatically register their members as Labour members, the free time they donate, and the way they use their rights in the workplace to campaign for Labour. They are also elements that I would prefer not to have in our political system.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Secrecy is never as good as transperancey as I said PaulL Good governance is about getting rid of the Labour type mentality Otherwise you just rollover and give in and then you get what we have now.
Secret backers with hidden agendas The average punter becomes meaningless and surplus to the process as the pollies are bought and paid for
As we are now discovering and that with a disclosed benefactor let alone undisclosed.
Can you imagine the agendas of undisclosed donors who have bought pollies to do their bidding.they aint gonna be for the good of the citizens
We the citizens can no longer have any trust in any politican in the House of Parliament. They all stand accussed unless that can produce evidence proof positive that they are not guilty of corruption.
Its a sad fact but a reality. they have bought it on themselves and only have themselves to blame.
they have played fast and lose with us and now they face the consequences.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I don’t see it as being as dire as you do gd. I have commented here before that what Labour are alleged to have done here isn’t that worrying for me, other than the gong. And since I don’t give a rats about the gongs, I guess someone may as well get money by selling them. The hypocrisy, however, is what will hang them.
I fundamentally don’t believe that secret people in NZ are buying off pollies with money. Any more than I believe that unions are buying off labour with money. Sure, those people who donate money to National do it because they agree with the policies that National espouse, and to that extent you could argue that they are bribing National to have policies they want. But I don’t really think that is what happens – it is people being charitable and supporting the political process.
With the unions, again you could argue that unions buy off Labour with their money in order to get union friendly policies. Or you could say that Labour have union friendly policies because they believe in them, and the unions support Labour because they also agree with those policies.
Sorry, I just don’t think that a conspiracy like you seem to be suggesting could actually be operating in NZ without anyone knowing.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
OK PaulL but without disclosure none of us know because we cant connect the dots thats what its all about. If I give $X to a political party and its all disclosed then no problems . If not I could be getting some favours and no one would know.
Now from my early working days in the 1970s I was aware of favours like cars for pollies wives and girlfriends Not given but loaned, Whats called Demos in the trade. The payoff was import licences thru the Customs Dept. Nothing traceable all verbal etc etc. It has happened and alas i have no reason to think its any different in 08.
But that doesnt make it right And that say its gotta continue.
And the Glenn affair has just bought a whole pile of sewage to the surface What I want to know is what else is down there casue I bet there heaps
February 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Yeah, but a lot of the opportunities for graft were functions of the Muldoon era. I didn’t think there was that much opportunity for petty graft such as that around anymore.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Rich Pricks” supporting Socialism are not a turnoff for those who vote for Socialist parties. Labour has nothing to lose on this. The polls won’t even blink.