Key turns the tables

May 8th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Yahoo News reports:

Prime Minister John Key has turned the tables on Labour and the Greens when they attacked him in parliament over National Party fundraising.

They’re claiming it’s a corruption of democracy for the party to charge people a subscription to “cabinet clubs” where they can attend lunches and get-togethers with politicians.

Labour’s Chris Hipkins and Green Party co-leader Russel Norman on Wednesday challenged Mr Key to say it was acceptable.

“Absolutely it is and it’s been going on for a very long time,” Mr Key said.

“I could show you an example of a political party that asked people to pay $1250 to have one-on-one meetings with the MP of their choice.

“And a political party ran an event, they charged $500 and you could go with the leader and pick an MP to discuss any `important issue’.”

The Labour Party ran both those events, Mr Key said, and he went on to offer to table a speech by former deputy prime minister Sir Michael Cullen to a fund-raising dinner.

“If you really want me to stay on my feet I can continue to do so,” he told opposition MPs.

Mr Key also referred to Dr Norman’s much-publicised meeting with internet tycoon Kim Dotcom, saying the MP had “grovelled”.

“I really think that member needs to recognise his high horse went lame when he parked it up at the Dotcom mansion,” Mr Key said.

The hypocrisy of Labour on this issue especially is massive. Labour have a history of actually selling one on one meetings with MPs, and they complain about National selling tickets to breakfast and lunch meetings with MPs.

The real agenda here is Labour and the Greens want their parties to be funded by taxpayers. We should resist this strongly.

Tags:

131 Responses to “Key turns the tables”

  1. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Armstrong in the Hooerald says Key is red hot.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11251436

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    I like how pointing the finger at almost everyone is apparently out of the question, so “they do it too” becomes an acceptable defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    It’s different when Labour do it !

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Key won’t be in Parliament today so the pressure is being applied to Michael Woodhouse.

    HOLLY WALKER to the Minister of Immigration: Has he discussed issues relating to his immigration portfolio at Cabinet Club events; if so, on how many occasions?

    Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: Did the Government instruct Immigration New Zealand to review the Investor Plus scheme of $10 million; if so, for what reason?

    Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Immigration: Why did he personally call on Donghua Liu to receive his representations on immigration policy following Donghua Liu making a donation to the National Party?

    I don’t know if Woodhouse has had that sort of attention before, it will be a test for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    Would Labour care to deny they used the luxury yacht of a certain prominent Auckland businessman on a number of occasions as a venue to woo donations? Come on board, meet the Prime Minister and other members of the Clark government as you cruise the tranquil waters of the Hauraki Gulf. All this is pretty well known. I just don’t think anyone expected them to stoop so low in the hypocrisy ranks.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    No surprise Mallard is quacking furiously in duck season.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Labour are running true to form, along with the distasteful Greens. They are envious, non-achieving losers, who have, and will, never amount to anything other than rodent fodder.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    If you have an MP trying to influence the justice system, and another appearing to be mixing milky favours with donors then of course the opposition are going to try to push your image further down that path for their gain like this. Just like National paints Labour as rag-tag and tricky at every opportunity. And it appears to be working based on this morning’s results. You know this DPF. This is part and parcel of knobby devious rotten political life not matter which side you back. Your feigned shock-horror they are the bad guys routine becomes tiresome.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    But…but…but, it’s DIFFERENT when Labour and the Gweens do it!

    Apologies to burt above for not noticing his contribution before posting! Great minds think alike.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    I like how pointing the finger at almost everyone is apparently out of the question, so “they do it too” becomes an acceptable defence.

    ‘Two wrongs make a right’ is the 11th Commandment of the politician’s bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Key is just too good for Cunliffe,its that simple.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. michaelmouse (15 comments) says:

    I think the lame horse quip to Norman was one of the best come backs I’ve ever heard. If Key came up with that on the spot, then the man is a genius.
    It was great to see JK sticking it to all the opposition, something they thoroughly deserved.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tom hunter (4,811 comments) says:

    …. so “they do it too” becomes an acceptable defence.

    Normally that’s not the case, but this is what you get when double standards are applied. I don’t believe for one moment that any of the Lefties here on KB could give a tinkers damn about such things were Labour-Green in government.

    I’m more than a bit pissed off with National over a number of other things but I have no intention of taking notice of any screaming Leftie on these issues after nine years of 99% of them playing defence over Helen. I might take notice of IdiotSavant because he did seem to play a straight bat on Taito Phillip Field – and that case was far worse than what either Collins or even the execrable member for Pakuranga have done – but Public Address, Dim, even Psycho Milt (who I’ve usually got time for) – No.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Mallard and his fat fairy friend have some serious questions to answer in the very near future!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Why would they take this line? Surely they are not so stupid as to think that no one would call them out? Actually….

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    So they do it and that makes it alright for ‘us’ to do it too….

    I thought the idea was to have a government that was better than everyone else, not the same as?

    Can someone please explain this to our politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ lilman (712 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Key is the same as Cunnliffe – they are both tarred by the same brush.

    It’s like a bloody tennis match – one serves the other responds, there is very little difference between them – both are self-serving smug egotists.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (761 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Depends how you define ‘stupid’ = would an MP that thought they could get away with phoning the police over an official matter, be considered stupid? How about someone that thought it would be okay to drag up a four year old private discussion with a private member of the electorate and broadcast the details to the media, to try and gain some ground in an unrelated matter – would they be stupid?

    You need to provide a definition of what you think is stupid, and then do some history checks to make sure the party you are promoting, hasn’t been just as stupid and done exactly the same thing in the past – accusing their opposition of something they, themselves have done.

    History can be a bugger when it comes to this game which can go back and forwards for a very long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    http://polity.co.nz/content/key-lies-parliament-proof

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    Ouch, poor Cunliffe, even Judith hates him!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mjw (396 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    Armstrong in the Herald
    ” Thinking there was little point in putting further questions to Collins when it was already widely accepted she had a conflict of interest in her dealings with milk exporter Oravida”

    “Widely accepted” – while there are a few “wide” persons on the opposition benches, both in stature and performance. How has Armstrong come to this conclusion – by re-reading his own journalistic endeavors. The general population are thoroughly bored with the efforts of the chubby fairy et al

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Auberon (823 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I have no respect for the man whatsoever, and only a tiny smidgen of respect for Key.

    I am proud to say there only three MP’s in the house I have a great deal of respect for.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    No matter how much Oravida donate to National, they won’t get to select National’s Leader or the Prime Minister.

    On the other hand, I’d like to know how much the unions donate to Labour so they get to select the party leader and potentially the next PM.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Judith (5,914 comments) says:

    “I thought the idea was to have a government that was better than everyone else, not the same as? ”

    It is in the publics interest to know Judith. One the whole National are pretty up front about these sort of things compared to Labour. And remember most of the high up mp’s from that Labour government are still there. People deserve to know that Labour aren’t the suqeky clean party they like to make themselves out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    I thought the idea was to have a government that was better than everyone else, not the same as?

    Can someone please explain this to our politicians.

    Hmm. No thanks.

    But I will take the time explain to you (free of charge!) that as we have government

    …of the people

    …by the people

    …for the people

    then unsurprisingly our representatives look, talk and act like us.

    I elect them to do their job – and “role model” is not in their job description, any more than it should be for sports stars or celebrities.

    Instead, I expect them to do this:

    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Judith (5,914 comments) says:

    “How about someone that thought it would be okay to drag up a four year old private discussion with a private member of the electorate and broadcast the details to the media, to try and gain some ground in an unrelated matter – would they be stupid?”

    Yes Judith, I agree they were stupid things to do. You won’t find me saying that they did the right thing in this instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mjw (396 comments) says:

    Kimbo that is old hat. These days we have government:

    … of the businesspeople

    … by the businesspeople

    … for the businesspeople

    For confirmation, have a look at the National party selections in their safe seats.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    mjw

    And Labour are:

    … of the unions

    … by the unions

    … for the unions

    Worse still they get to choose the leader FFS. Imagine business have an official role in choosing the leader of the National party.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Kimbo that is old hat.

    Yeah, nah.

    When they are businesspeople they are out of touch

    When they are self-made from across the wrong side of the tracks like Key and Bennett they are rich pricks and class traitors.

    So I’ll pass on the fairy-tale Marxist consciousness-raising, thanks very much…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    mjw

    When National pass laws giving free access to public service workplaces by BRT members to recruit paying members (subsidised by the government) then we know that National are as corrupted by their backers as Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Shit Judith,even by your standards thats poor.

    Key is so far ahead of Cunliffe its embarassing.
    Culiffe is devoid of personality,honesty and the ability to argue any point of economics or justice.
    He simply is disliked,even his own caucus cant stand the man.
    Judith the more you say the less your revellence becomes.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    And Labour are:

    … of the unions

    … by the unions

    … for the unions

    Now, now. The colours of the Labour rainbow run the gamut from crimson to pink, with bright scarlet in between.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Judith: Big difference . . . Key is a successful person, with wealth, assets and popularity to prove it. Cunliffe is a liar, bordering on fraudster, in some instances, even to the point of deceiving young Labour members as to his families’ war exploits, this being as low as anyone can go. Cannot imagine JK sitting at a Anzac Day service texting one of his rainbow room mates, can you!

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    There are plenty of clips on Youtube that show examples of John Key lying as well. Key has also lied personally to me – or rather, failed to keep a promise.

    John Key may have amassed tremendous wealth, whether you consider that ‘successful’ or not, entirely depends on your morality, and how what your definition of success is. He doesn’t meet my definition of ‘success’. Key is popular with many, he is also vastly disliked by many. He did not score over 50% at the last election, and it looks very much like he won’t reach that target at this election, so I fail to see on what you are basing your claims.

    I don’t believe this is a game where if you don’t like one person, it means you automatically respect the other. Key has faults, and so does Cunnliffe – In my opinion, neither is leader material, and the standard of politics in this country has dropped lower than it did under Helen.

    Regarding the ‘assets’ being a reason for respect – believe me it isn’t – I have plenty of assets, and I don’t think you respect me! :-)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ lilman (713 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    I fail to see what your point is? I have no respect for Cunnliffe, and if I had to chose a leader for Labour, I would have stuck with Shearer. He may have lost this up coming election, but I believe he would have matured into the role, and eventually provide leadership New Zealander’s can respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Tom has the right of this; “They did it TOO” is a piss-poor line to take except where the issue is hypocrisy and double-standards. When Labour and the Greens complain that National is selling access to MPs for influence and exclaim how terrible that is, it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate response to point out that all parties have down this. If it is a practice that makes National “corrupt”, then by exactly the same standards Labour and the Greens are corrupt as well.

    Although we know that they themselves believe it, I give absolutely no credibility to the left’s claim that “It’s different when WE do it”.

    I think though that both Labour & the Greens knew that this would backfire as it did, it was after all a bit too easy. Thus I suggest that this is simply a campaign to bring in public funding of parties. THAT represents every leftist politicians wet-dream, jobs for the sycophants, the hangers on, the family, and a whole heap of people who are otherwise unlikely to ever find themselves a well-paying job. A job with nothing really to do except to meddle and parade their “compassion” for the common non-taxpayer by telling them how to live their lives while living off the pigs back.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/polity-key-lies-to-parliament-the-proof/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Prince (105 comments) says:

    This issue goes to the heart of each Parties’ ethos.
    National is a community-based party despite the attempted smear of ‘moneyed influence’. Any would-be MP is strongly encouraged to develop relationships through community organisations and network. This is what turns many people off the party, but it is its strength. Volunteering and donating are core beliefs.
    Labour is a union-based party, operating on a ‘give and take’ basis with the ‘workers’ movement’. As unions influence has declined, so has Labour as a political force. Clark tried to expand the influence, but Cunliffe is bringing it right back to its roots. Levies and fees are preferred means of fundraising.
    Greens are (purposely?) relatively weak in structure, with regards to community involvement. The are suspicious of ‘influence networking’. They believe funding determined by, and supplied by a central authority is fairer and leads to equality of opportunity. In the absence of that, they also tend to levies, fees or ‘tithes’ based on ability to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “The real agenda here is Labour and the Greens want their parties to be funded by taxpayers. We should resist this strongly.”

    IF us poor tax payers did have to fund these dip shits, would we get better govt?

    would we get a labour govt not owned by the unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Key has also lied personally to me – or rather, failed to keep a promise.” – i wouldnt call you the morning after either.

    Judith: im so excited, we are going to have a picnic today
    Dime: change of plans, i gotta work. cya.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Key is a successful person, with wealth, assets and popularity to prove it.

    By your definition of “success,” Hitler was the greatest bloke of the late 1930s.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. chris (647 comments) says:

    Judith says:

    So they do it and that makes it alright for ‘us’ to do it too….

    I thought the idea was to have a government that was better than everyone else, not the same as?

    Can someone please explain this to our politicians.

    There’s nothing wrong with raising funds for a Parliamentary party, and nothing wrong with doing it by having a dinner, breakfast etc. There’s something seriously wrong with you if you think there is. And in any case, it’s not against the rules. And it’s not bending the rules in some dodgy way either.

    As others above have pointed out, the reason John Key is pointing out that Labour have done it too, is to point out the massive amount of hypocrisy on display.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Judith (5,916 comments) says:

    “There are plenty of clips on Youtube that show examples of John Key lying as well. Key has also lied personally to me – or rather, failed to keep a promise.”

    What is this promise you mention all the time? Just out of interest.

    “the standard of politics in this country has dropped lower than it did under Helen”

    I’m sorry but that is rubbish. Taito Phillip Field corruption, Winstons Glenn scandal, pledge card scandal etc. There are many more examples of what went on under Helen.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Ed Snack>When Labour and the Greens complain that National is selling access to MPs for influence and exclaim how terrible that is, it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate response to point out that all parties have down this.

    I really don’t see what the what TV3-generated fuss is about. What do we know:

    1. MPs go to party fundraisers.
    2. While there they talk to people.
    3. They listen to what people tell them, but decisions are made on the basis of policy coherence and electoral popularity rather than the meagre amounts donated.
    4. This isn’t the only way people can talk to MPs or Ministers. If you want to talk to one, ring up their office and make a booking.
    5. Collins probably acted incorrectly by having anything to do them Oravida. But if she helped them re-gain access to the Chinese market then she helped export earnings and Kiwi jobs. I don’t have much of a problem with either outcome.

    It’s like mass hysteria. According to Labour, the Greens, and TV3 then if you’ve ever donated money to a political party then you somehow lose your rights to talk to your MP or a Minister. Unless you’re a union and your donation earns you the right to elect the Labour leader… that’s okay for some reason. Or you’re a gym owner and your donation gets the Green Party to adopt your environmental initiatives… that’s also okay. I suspect the undercurrent of anti-Chinese racism that predominates on the Left is partly to blame here.

    As a bigger issue, one of the great things about NZ is that it is easy to meet with MPs and you don’t need to pay a bribe to do so. My local MP is Grant Robertson. I don’t agree with just about anything he says or does, but I am absolutely sure that if I wanted to meet with him then all I’d need to do would be to ring his office and make a booking. And I wouldn’t have to donate to Labour. But if I chose to donate to Labour, then hopefully people wouldn’t accuse Robertson of corruption. The current donation hysteria risks alienating people from MPs, Ministers, and political parties. That is a bad thing.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    The National Party is more honest than Labour because once it is bought it stays bought unlike Labour who shat on their biggest donor Owen Glenn. National would still benefit hugely on State funding because its support is roughly the equal of Greens and Labour combined so that would be reflected in the funding. Be careful what you wish for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Labour have a history of actually selling one on one meetings with MPs, and they complain about National selling tickets to breakfast and lunch meetings with MPs.

    Have they a history of offering one-on-one time with the Minister of Immigration to Chinese immigration interests in exchange for donations to Labour? Because that would be pretty shit, in fact downright corrupt if they’d been doing something like that, wouldn’t it…

    Still, the donations circus actually helps Key because it draws attention away from the fact that he’s having to lie to Parliament to cover for a corrupt Minister he can’t dismiss.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    If this whole sorry saga has proved anything, it has proved that taxpayer funding of political parties is ESSENTIAL.

    Hah!

    Nothing sorry about it at all. And it has proved NOTHING of the sort.

    Ministers, who are available to anyone and anyone on official business also meet for the purposes of party fund-raising.

    All of which is above board.

    And anyone – businesses, unions, private individuals, rich and poor, white, black, brown and brindle are free to contribute.

    Is no different from when a local rugby club runs a dinner at $1000/table and people participate in auctions of memorabilia. The punters pay, not because it is worth that, but because they want to donate to the cause, and this is as means to do so.

    This is just typical anti-business rhetoric from the left. What about unions and ecological organisations or Phillip Mills donating to Labour and the Greens? Any accusations of “undue influence” from those piously and hypocritically wringing their hands? Cue: Sound of chirping crickets.

    What is NOT acceptable is tax-payer funding for political parties. I DO NOT want my taxes going to that.

    Instead, just as they have to scratch around for votes from the electorate to justify their existence, so they should raise their own funds from the public to pay their bills. If they can’t, then it is a pretty good indication of the extent of their electoral appeal. And someone like Colin Craig will doubtless soon confirm again, that money can’t buy you votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. CHFR (229 comments) says:

    PM you just Gowdined the thread…congratulations

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “By your definition of “success,” Hitler was the greatest bloke of the late 1930s.”

    well, if he had died in ’37… youd be claiming him as a great socialist leader. instead of trying to palm him off onto us peace loving right wingers :)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt According the Labours one fundraising initiative you could choose whatever minister you wanted for $1200! Conceivably that could be a Chinese person wanting to talk to the Lab immigration spokesperson. But that is OK why? Please explain.

    BTW I have no problem with any party including Labour doing this but I do find their hypocrisy disgraceful.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    If John Key amassing significant wealth after coming from an under-privileged background, and rising to Prime Minister (and taking a huge pay cut to do so), and being the most popular PM in my lifetime doesn’t meet the definition of success of the Marxists in this thread, then what does?

    How about having a loving marriage and being a good father and role model? Is that good enough? Maybe you could explain the success you have achieved and we can see if JK measures up.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    As for the subject of the thread, will the left now discontinue any such fundraising, even though it’s within the rules? You know, make a moral stand to back up their talk.

    Yeah, nah.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    I am proud to say there only three MP’s in the house I have a great deal of respect for.

    Judith, who are they and why ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. SJM (77 comments) says:

    Any individual in the course of their working life is responsible for their actions and accountable to their employer for their conduct. Politicians are not so accountable, they are accountable to parliament and their party, not to the people who pay them. We must make politicians accountable to the public 24/7 or scandals such as ‘cash for access’ or ‘cash for policy’ will become not simply a dirty little secret but an accepted state of affairs. At which point democracy in NZ will be truly cease to exist

    All this is reason why politicians must be able to be removed by their electorates at the discretion of their voters and government by the nation as a whole, at our discretion, not politicians. The public must be able to overturn legislation, direct the action of government, and above all the public, not parliament, pass the budget because its our money, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt According the Labours one fundraising initiative you could choose whatever minister you wanted for $1200! Conceivably that could be a Chinese person wanting to talk to the Lab immigration spokesperson. But that is OK why? Please explain.

    I read one opinion somewhere that suggested that doing one-offs as a limited fundraiser was actually less dodgy than regularly holding these sorts of things (like once a month). I tend to agree – if you do it regularly (like a scheduled slot every month) and you happen to be the Government that does kind of “imply” something – i.e. at any time you can come along and “chat” with MPs as opposed to “special event – come for a meet ‘n’ greet with a person you’ve seen on the tellie”. Hmmmm….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    “PM you just Gowdined the thread…congratulations”

    Not only godwined but PM also threw in his support for racial profiling – I haven’t heard any complaints about meetings with Europeans. Just not acceptable when they are Chinese. The left have developed a hatred for anyone from China, I guess because of them taking a turn towards capitalism they are seen as betrayers of the Stalinist cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Politicians are not so accountable, they are accountable to parliament and their party, not to the people who pay them. We must make politicians accountable to the public 24/7 or scandals such as ‘cash for access’ or ‘cash for policy’ will become not simply a dirty little secret but an accepted state of affairs. At which point democracy in NZ will be truly cease to exist…The public must be able to overturn legislation, direct the action of government, and above all the public, not parliament, pass the budget because its our money, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Never heard of a thing called elections?!

    Or the freedom of the Press?!

    THERE! Imaginary problems and Chicken Licken cries that “the sky is falling/the tanks are rolling into Prague” sorted!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    It was great to see JK sticking it to all the opposition, something they thoroughly deserved.

    I thought he was a screeching, over excited, school girl. Or what was it RightNow called me the other day? Shrill? Yep, that’s it – Shrill. Poor excuse if you’re supposedly on a higher plane than the opposition. Actually, poor excuse if you’re the Prime Minister, full stop.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Not only godwined but PM also threw in his support for racial profiling – I haven’t heard any complaints about meetings with Europeans. Just not acceptable when they are Chinese. The left have developed a hatred for anyone from China, I guess because of them taking a turn towards capitalism they are seen as betrayers of the Stalinist cause.

    I would tend to think it would be for the more obvious reason that all three “incidents” have been with people of Chinese descent. There’s obviously a bit of a theme going on.

    But, hey, don’t let me stop you having your boring Red Dawn rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    itstricky (1,209 comments) says:

    “I read one opinion somewhere that suggested that doing one-offs as a limited fundraiser was actually less dodgy than regularly holding these sorts of things (like once a month). I tend to agree”

    Come on mate. That is a pathetic attempt to make out what Labour did is different than National. Was the opinion over at the Standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. SJM (77 comments) says:

    Kimbo (471 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    Never heard of a thing called elections?!

    Or the freedom of the Press?!

    THERE! Imaginary problems and Chicken Licken cries that “the sky is falling/the tanks are rolling into Prague” sorted!”
    ———————————————
    Elections? freedom of the press?? its hilarious that you think that means sweet FA. Open your eyes, you have the right to be bribed, with your own money, every three years into giving a bunch of self selected persons a blank cheque to do what they want with, without reference to you. Understand this, the Government is not under any obligation to ask you for more than the time of day every three years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “You need to provide a definition of what you think is stupid”

    Anyone who would vote for a Labour/Green/NZF/Mana/DotCon government.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Can someone help Judith remove that painful thorn from one of her paws?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    “I thought he was a screeching, over excited, school girl.”

    You would. But in reality he wasn’t. He was on fire and rightly showed up the rank hypocrisy of the screeching Left.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimbo (471 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    Never heard of a thing called elections?!

    Yep, I have, and I note in the last five elections Labour has received 183% of the vote over those five elections, and National only 149% of the votes.(eek I shamefully contributed to that three times!!) And I guess no one wants to talk about the 2006 election and the figure 21, do they? And in case anyone cares to go looking, NO you won’t find a score that low for the Labour Party – ever! :-)

    So yeah, lets talk about elections – it seems a good place to start an argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. kiwi in america (2,443 comments) says:

    Labour and the Greens had no comeback for Key’s riposts. I don’t think they saw this coming. Seeing that Key had been quite low key on Collins before, perhaps they expected more of the same and thus the headlines would be all Collins all day. Key is a master at weaving his lines into his replies. He gets out enough of his rebuttals before the Speaker cuts him off or the cleverer Labour members raise “he’s answered the question” points of order. This time Key came out all guns blazing and hit each questioner hard on their hypocrisy. His retort to Norman “I really think that member needs to recognise his high horse went lame when he parked it up at the Dotcom mansion” is one of the most withering one liners seen in the House since the days of Lange and Muldoon.

    The art of Question Time is to have alternative supplementary questions to tailor to the Minister’s response – Labour and the Greens have a list of supplementaries that they religiously read from even if they’ve just been humiliated by the PM seconds before. Gerry Brownlee is also a master of House procedure and he chimes in with priceless Points of Order always laced with sarcasm and humour.

    Labour’s strategy is clear. Lie, smear, use innuendo and obfuscate and hope that all the MSM are as one eyed as Paddy Gower has become and make every minor misstep a monstrous scandal. National is right to counter attack and do so vigorously and frequently and to use blogs and social media to talk over the MSM’s biased spin.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Wow, I had no idea a government was determined over 5 elections.

    I also don’t remember the 2006 election. Was this the fictional 2006 Presidential Election in the West Wing? I’m still annoyed at that, it should have been Vinick.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Okay, what’s wrong with public funding?

    You’d have to establish a formula, but that shouldn’t be too hard.

    Then everything would be open, not hidden under the table.

    As for Key being wealthy, he became that way risking other people’s money. He’s never built anything useful in his life.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Ahh, so it’s HOW you get rich that determines success.

    How did you make your millions? What are acceptable ways of earning significant sums?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Steve (North Shore) (4,560 comments) says:

    Great Circus. The Ringmaster calls out the Clowns, and they perform!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    Andronicus
    “Then everything would be open, not hidden under the table.”

    Just what is it you don’t understand about donations in this country having to be declared and open already?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    I am not sure that any Labour MPs are bound by the cabinet manual. Not until September anyhow

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Psycho

    By your definition of “success,” Hitler was the greatest bloke of the late 1930s.

    The national socialist worker party leader …. How could anyone here agree that a national socialists worker party leader could be a great bloke. Clearly, given his union background, the man was dishonest about his intentions and cared only for himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (6,721 comments) says: May 8th, 2014 at 2:02 pm
    I like how pointing the finger at almost everyone is apparently out of the question, so “they do it too” becomes an acceptable defence.

    What does this mean Ryan? I can’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    Auberon (823 comments) says: May 8th, 2014 at 2:08 pm
    Would Labour care to deny they used the luxury yacht of a certain prominent Auckland businessman on a number of occasions as a venue to woo donations? …

    Why bring up a point like this, if you’re not going to write the name? There’s enough made up vague claims flying around all the time as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    igm (959 comments) says: May 8th, 2014 at 2:10 pm
    Labour are running true to form, along with the distasteful Greens. They are envious, non-achieving losers, who have, and will, never amount to anything other than rodent fodder.

    Yeah, you tell them. I bet they’re sitting at their computer gleefully writing negative comments about the people they look down on, on some blog paved with similar comments posted by their likeminded peers. What’s that blog called? Red Alert..? The Standard..? Or is it Kiwiblog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    If John Key amassing significant wealth after coming from an under-privileged background, and rising to Prime Minister (and taking a huge pay cut to do so), and being the most popular PM in my lifetime doesn’t meet the definition of success of the Marxists in this thread, then what does?

    How about having a loving marriage and being a good father and role model? Is that good enough? Maybe you could explain the success you have achieved and we can see if JK measures up.

    Interestingly Zapper, in this crazy mixed up world we live in, that isn’t enough. It seems the only criterion by which success can be measured is giving compo to a formerly convicted mass-murderer based upon a report that would have embarrassed an illiterate 10 year old with English as a second third language.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    Judith (5,918 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 2:38 pm
    It’s like a bloody tennis match – one serves the other responds, there is very little difference between them – both are self-serving smug egotists.

    In high school, when the hateful spiteful bully had put down his victim, did you also then come along to put the boot in – and then blame the victim for trying to defend themselves?

    Back your negativity on this one up. What should Key have done? Cunliffe and the rest involved in trying to portray National as a party of pay for access politicians were obviously hypocrites. You’re not denying that, as far as I can tell. Should he just lie there and let Labour continue with it’s current attack campaign, even though this one was more easily dismissed

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ross411 (6 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    I think national is guilty as charged, but I also think Labour is just as guilty – they are, as I have repeatedly said, both as bad as each other.

    But, I go further by adding that this country needs a government that is BETTER than the others, not just the same as.
    So far, in recent weeks, National has not performed to that level. They have proved with the likes of Williamson and Collins, that they are only the same as everyone else – and that does not command respect or give them any kudos, as far as I am concerned.

    And on the PM aspect – this country needs a leader that is strong, humble, and prepared to turn the other cheek, rather than act spiteful, smug and like a child (as the rest of them do). Key’s continued childish performance in the house does not have the qualities that a nations leader should have. It does not show integrity, restraint, strength or a mature demeanor. He is leader because he is meant to be better than anyone else on offer – people should aspire to be like him – all he is showing us is that he can be a pathetic and childish as the rest of them. That is hardly anything inspiring. He is meant to be the better man – he needs to start acting like it.

    So far I don’t see anyone on offer being able to provide what is required to file the role of our countries leading statesman. .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Zapper (854 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Sorry, typo, it was of course the 2005 election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    well, if he had died in ’37… youd be claiming him as a great socialist leader.

    I’m not sure whether to find the above expression of ignorance amusing or depressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    If John Key amassing significant wealth after coming from an under-privileged background, and rising to Prime Minister (and taking a huge pay cut to do so), and being the most popular PM in my lifetime doesn’t meet the definition of success of the Marxists in this thread, then what does?

    How about having a loving marriage and being a good father and role model? Is that good enough? Maybe you could explain the success you have achieved and we can see if JK measures up.

    The comment was about stupid definitions of success, not whether John Key is a success or not. The division of people into “successes” and “failures” is obnoxious and stupid. It’s easy to paint Key as a success – it’s also easy to paint him as an ex-currency trader who made big bucks through helping the people who brought us the GFC, a man who profited from an attack on his own country’s currency, someone whose ambition is strictly personal (in that he’s PM because it’s always been his ambition to be PM), a politician who’s devoted his time in power to further enriching the already rich, and a Prime Minister who’s sunk to lying in Parliament to cover for a corrupt minister. Terms like “success” or “failure” when applied to people are just another form of bullshit.

    Still, if you’re determined to define a “success” as someone who’s made a lot of money and clawed their way up to a position of power, let’s pursue it further: what’s Bronagh Key according to your definition? A failure, apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    …PM also threw in his support for racial profiling – I haven’t heard any complaints about meetings with Europeans. Just not acceptable when they are Chinese. The left have developed a hatred for anyone from China, I guess because of them taking a turn towards capitalism they are seen as betrayers of the Stalinist cause.

    That’s kind of funny, coming from a supporter of a communist dictatorship. I know that, for you guys, it’s all about the money and Chinese money talks as loud as American or any other money. But those of us who don’t put money above all other things, especially if we have some experience of living in the Third World, know what it means for the country if we welcome wealthy investors from countries where corruption is the norm. China is a country where corruption is the norm, so yes I’m dubious about rich Chinese buying NZ citizenship and treating cabinet ministers as business partners, just as the English should be about rich Russians ‘investing’ in the UK – ethnicity is irrelevant to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    He is leader because he is meant to be better than anyone else on offer – people should aspire to be like him – all he is showing us is that he can be a pathetic and childish as the rest of them. That is hardly anything inspiring. He is meant to be the better man – he needs to start acting like it.

    It’s not just about jobs for the boys and lying to cover it up.

    Collins was in China doing an anti-corruption spiel. Collins getting taken down makes New Zealand look like idiots as far as the Chinese are concerned. Key is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    The western culture of corruption is more pervasive than most people know, to see this as something that can be resolved by a contest between National and Labour would be a mistake.

    So far I don’t see anyone on offer being able to provide what is required to file the role of our countries leading statesman. .

    He’s the best man for the job IMO, but if people don’t think he’s being honest come election time he’s goneburgers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    Judith (5,923 comments) says: May 8th, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    But, I go further by adding that this country needs a government that is BETTER than the others, not just the same as.
    So far, in recent weeks, National has not performed to that level. They have proved with the likes of Williamson and Collins, that they are only the same as everyone else – and that does not command respect or give them any kudos, as far as I am concerned.

    I’m curious. Do you really think we’ll ever have politicians in power who will actually meet your standards? At some point, perhaps you have to accept that out of what we have, some despite their faults are in a better class than the others, and that’s the best we’ll be able to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (3,375 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    It’s not just about jobs for the boys and lying to cover it up.

    Collins was in China doing an anti-corruption spiel. Collins getting taken down makes New Zealand look like idiots as far as the Chinese are concerned. Key is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    The western culture of corruption is more pervasive than most people know, to see this as something that can be resolved by a contest between National and Labour would be a mistake.

    Unsubstantiated ravings.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Are you denying that Collins was in China doing an anti corruption spiel, or something else?

    Or are you too much of a coward to do nothing other than smear and run?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    I’m so over it. Yes I get it TV3 and One News:

    Labour fundraising and taking donations from people and unions = OK
    National fundraising and taking donations from people = Pure evil and corrupt.

    The fact Labour have dusted off their least credible old war-horse to lead the charge says they don’t want any back-splatter from it’s loose stool hitting Cunliffe’s mug.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ross411 (835 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (3,379 comments) says: May 8th, 2014 at 7:45 pm
    Are you denying that Collins was in China doing an anti corruption spiel, or something else?

    Or are you too much of a coward to do nothing other than smear and run?

    You keep saying that like it makes sense. Make it make sense, then when I can understand it, I’ll decide whether it’s something I can deny.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/

    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ross411 (9 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Something awfully familiar about you Ross? But to answer your question, we’ve had leaders that have commanded and been given respect before, who have acted with dignity and integrity, whilst at the same time being able to destroy their opponents by being the ‘bigger man’ and not resorting to the same tactics employed by their opposition. New Zealander’s don’t like show-offs, and they don’t like smugness – until now Key has got away with it, but I think people are tiring of it – they are starting to ask what else can this man offer – and their questions are going unanswered.

    Initially they were happy to embrace a self made millionaire – many figured if he could do that for himself, that had to be a good thing, and maybe he could do it for them. Six years down the line they are starting to realise that that is not going to happen. Yes, the millionaires we had are doing very well – but there aren’t any new ones – and those that have been shadowing the leader in hopes of his ‘gold finger’ touching them, aren’t actually any better off than they were before he was leader. In fact, thanks to global recessions, and earthquakes, some of them are even worse off.

    Sure, we might be sort of in the black – but that only matters if people are individually doing better – and they are not. So now they are looking to vote with the reality that Key is not going to make them rich – instead of the adoration, they will forget their dreams and look for a good leader – and that is where Key is going to have to up his game – because the illusion of a ‘messiah’ has faded, and now he is going to have to offer something more to make people feel secure in his ability to do what is right for this country.

    I also think that there is evidence that his own team is tiring of him (Williamson/Collins) and not backing him as much as they used to (15 not standing for re-election). The illusion has gone, time for reality – and I don’t think Key knows how to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    “Key has also lied personally to me – or rather, failed to keep a promise.”

    Be that as it may, Rob Salmond caught Key lying to parliament yesterday.

    http://polity.co.nz/content/key-lies-parliament-proof

    The noose grows ever tighter.

    If Key had sacked Collins already, this would not be happening. Now the opposition have moved on to attacking Key’s judgement in keeping her.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    And Mallard proved again what he’s great at.

    That’s 2 days a week he’s got himself and accusations of National Party corruption in the paper. How many more hits will he get before they stop reporting them?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    igm. 4.54pm. I have become so tired of reading Judith’s negative crap that I automatically give her a thumbs down and read something more intelligent. One day she might just get the hint. I am sure the standard is calling her.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    “I thought he was a screeching, over excited, school girl.”

    You would.

    Of course I would, Shawn. I’d prefer a Prime Minister of decorum. Someone, who, you know, treated the office with respect and dignity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This is a harsh lesson for the National Party: don’t yell fire just because you see smoke.

    They’ve been organising media hits on Cunliffe for trivial shit that adds up to nothing in the end. Hence, it tends to blow away rather quickly.

    However, if there is an actual issue it’s really easy to keep blowing smoke at it over and over again and people will believe it.

    That’s two government ministers caught in corrupt dealings with wealthy Chinese donors. Labour, Winston and the Greens can dine out on this all the way to the election, because any insubstantial accusation they make automatically becomes substantial because of the facts about actual National corruption.

    Even the media are now reporting the Collins accusations as fact.

    I still think National will scrape in, but they will be a very weak government.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I have become so tired of reading Judith’s negative crap

    I would have thought that National would do well to pay attention to the opinions of educated, female, swinging voters, since if enough of them go soft on National, that will make it hard for Key to win.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    RF telling ‘igm’ he’s sick of negative comments. Priceless!

    Have you actually read any of ‘igm’s comments?

    Let me elaborate with an example:

    Commies. Red teacher commies. Envious red teacher commies. Envious dole bludger red teacher commies. Trougher envious dole bludger red teacher commies. Fat trougher envious dole bludger red commies. Did I say commies?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    I would sooner read igm posts than Judith’s. Each to his own.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Fair enough – what he lacks in thoughtfulness and common decency he makes up with creativeness, at least. I mean ‘rodent fodder’ – good anthropomorphism buddy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    Nice one my friend. I shall have another whiskey and reflect on our males domain. I get sick of feminist
    pretenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    Judith

    National did not get 21% in the 2005 election (or the 2006 election on the West Wing).

    Psycho

    I never gave my definition of success. I also don’t know enough about Bronagh to really comment, but I will say from the outside she does indeed strike me as very successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I much prefer Judith’s refreshing rational repartee to igm’s ideological ignoramus utterances but I do like his creative (although abusive) wordsmithing. I am sure I would prefer a Jameson to either though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. prosper (164 comments) says:

    It’s funny how people without money feel that having money is not necessarily a measurement of success.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    It’s funny how people who write on anonymous blogs assume that people they don’t know who write about being successful without having money don’t actually have any money.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Itstricky – if you had any money and were self made id be beyond shocked. married into it, inherited, I’d accept.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott1 (549 comments) says:

    National to still win with Winston in tow. Hmm good old Winston.. foreign minister maybe? Maybe he needs a little more ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    “It’s funny how people without money feel that having money is not necessarily a measurement of success.”

    I have a shit load. I don’t feel particularly successful, but then I do spend a lot of time in places around the world where I would be considered middle class.

    Here’s the weird thing about lefties, they can only be guided by their feelings about issues rather than rational thought, such as donations, wealth and so forth. They have “bad feelings” about National, and thus National receiving donations MUST be bad, so make up a few lies, innuendo and hey presto it’s all “bad”.

    They “feel” good about Labour, so secret laundered trusts, dodgy corruption (Philip Field) and union money all “feels” good, so all OK.

    Moral compasses never turn on “feelings” about shit, rather principles, of which Labour and lefties generally, have none.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    dime – it’s a shame that you believe your own self-enforced stereotypes. Get out a bit. Try sampling different points of view and realise that people aren’t what you define them to be when you take your first glance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Here’s the weird thing about lefties, they can only be guided by their feelings about issues rather than rational thought

    Here’s the weird thing about you – you seem to think human beings are different because they belong to a subclass called “left” or “right” – just like dime. And they all have particular stereotypical characteristics i.e. these lot are all bludgers, these are all wealthy go getters. It shows a distinct lack of experience outside your own little bubble. There’s one thing you’ve got right there though – the world is driven on emotional decisions, not rational ones – we are all human after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    There is no “sub-class”, just the stupid, the lefties. They drift through thought processes based on their “feelings” with every issue, just as you have perfectly illustrated. Not a word of rational thought, itstricky. Thanks for underscoring my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    Judith a couple of quiet observations:

    1. Communism does not work.

    2. David Bain killed his faily.

    We can argue details but the facts are self evident.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    Oh Kea, what have you done? Have you been drinking?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Here’s the weird thing about lefties, they can only be guided by their feelings about issues rather than rational thought.

    Oddly enough, it would take most of the “lefties” that frequent this blog very little time to eviscerate your simpleminded political views, so you ought perhaps to be careful of throwing around accusations of irrationality.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    Rich Prick, Yes Kea has had a few. :)

    You disagree with which statement of fact ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    Absolutely neither!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    Rich Prick, you get ugly when I drink ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Bob R (1,370 comments) says:

    ***The real agenda here is Labour and the Greens want their parties to be funded by taxpayers. We should resist this strongly.***

    God forbid politicians be beholden to taxpayers rather than special interests!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    Communism served the 38 million it killed rather well, David Bain strives to be the best remunerated former paper-boy ever, it’s just a pity the Bain’s didn’t organise life insurance first though, that might have spared us taxpayers his lotto jackpot, should he get the bonus number right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    Oh good, there’s Tom demonstrating my original point yet again. Not a reasoned argument, just a feelings outburst. Thanks mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    For those who appear to have disliked my description of John Key, maybe they can point out to me where I have misjudged him.

    He has held three jobs in his adult life:

    1) Auditor, or Bean counter.
    2) Project manager for Lane Walker Rudkin
    3) Forex dealer. In this role, he made a fortune gambling with other people’s money and smiled in his usual smarmy way while throwing people out of work.

    And that’s it.

    Not very impressive. Never owned or ran a company, never built anything useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    Andronicus, tell us what real jobs Clark did ?

    Labour MPs usually have such skills as; being gay, an “activist”, being a Maori. Most would be unemployable in the real world. National MPs could walk out the door and carry on working.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Kea: Let’s cut this gay and rainbow rubbish . . . these Labour types are straight out disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Most would be unemployable in the real world.

    You do realise that the conviction that an unreal or spirit world exists alongside the real one, and that creatures of this unreal world interact with those of the real one, is a sign of primitive animism or mental ill-health, right?

    Here’s the weird thing about lefties, they can only be guided by their feelings about issues rather than rational thought.

    That’s pretty funny, but it’s also the kind of assumption we should expect from someone who mistakes asserting his prejudices for forming a rational argument.

    It’s funny how people without money feel that having money is not necessarily a measurement of success.

    Smart people with money recognise it as a poor definition of success also. Obnoxious dumbasses with money rely on it pretty much exclusively as a definition of success, for obvious reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. prosper (164 comments) says:

    There you go Milt proving my point. We should give consideration to only taxpayers having the vote as they are paying for every thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Kea, this isn’t about Clark, Holyoake, Nash, Kirk, Lange or Shipley.

    This is about John Key.

    I realise that when you try to hijack a thread it’s because you have nothing else to offer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    There is no “sub-class”, just the stupid, the lefties. They drift through thought processes based on their “feelings” with every issue, just as you have perfectly illustrated. Not a word of rational thought, itstricky. Thanks for underscoring my point.

    A rational person wouldn’t lump everybody in the world into two classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Smart people with money recognise it as a poor definition of success also. Obnoxious dumbasses with money rely on it pretty much exclusively as a definition of success, for obvious reasons.

    Score!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    We should give consideration to only taxpayers having the vote as they are paying for every thing.

    Bit tricky in practice. The UK restricted the vote to men meeting property criteria for centuries, and it kind of worked, if you were rich and didn’t care whether you lived in a democracy or not. But they had to change it in 1918 to allow full adult male suffrage – given what had just happened in Russia, telling huge numbers of hardened combat veterans who’d just fought for their country that they weren’t entitled to vote was regarded as a bit too risky even for Tories. Nevertheless, well done – your enthusiasm for a retreat from universal adult suffrage does give you impeccable conservative credentials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nukuleka (325 comments) says:

    The tediousness and pointlessness to which this thread has descended reminds me of the kind of nastiness we see in The Standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote