Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:49 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25055 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574 ... 627  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20030
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Politicians accross the entire spectrum take advantage of the fact our media is shite. It's why people believed unicorns and rainbows for everyone was a believable promise.

At best we might get a "how will you ensure everyone will hey unicorns" which is usually met with a "why don't you want everyone to get a unicorn?" And stops there.

What we really want is

"Where will you get that many unicorns from?"

"How are people going to feed them?"

"How will people dispose of all the unicorn poo and is it a potential health hazard?".

"And how do you know unicorns given to people who aren't virgins won't violently attack them?".

But no. Our media is useless and hardly even tries to hold politicians to account.


Last edited by Fat Old Git on Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
guy smiley wrote:
Harvey, you and dark combined render this thread pretty much unreadable. Your hysterics shrieking about hardcore fanboys are overdone theatrics and hypocritical. Tone it down a bit and perhaps you’d get some engagement, otherwise it’s just not worth the effort.

As for ‘it’s an opinion piece’... well, yeah. It is and so is the rest of NZ media. There’s no reporting of substance done, it’s all just f**king hot air and the presenting of blogs as sources of authority is laughable.


a) I didn't post an opinion piece

b) I just said what Clark would do and implied Ardern was weak

c) Explain why I am wrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8701
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
He wasn’t particularly consistent on the matter...


Equating supporting other parties policy with going into coalition is a bit silly


I don’t think he ruled him out in 2014 is what I mean. Could be wrong.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=10703680


Quote:
Mr Key said he intended leading a positive, aspirational government in a second term.

"I don't see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead," he said at a press conference today.


"Historically, he has always been sacked by prime ministers. It's a very different style to mine and it's rearward-looking.


2014 is what Wilderbeast is talking about and he is right. John Key didn't rule out working with Winston Peters but was hoping to work with that loon from the Conservative Party instead.

Quote:
As for NZ First, Key said a post-election working relationship was "very unlikely, " but he wouldn't rule the possibility out before the election.

“In 2008 we ruled them out because we were unable to reconcile some of their statements on the Glenn donation matter. Six years has passed and, should New Zealand First be returned to Parliament, we would not rule out a discussion after the election," Key said.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
Auckman wrote:
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
He wasn’t particularly consistent on the matter...


Equating supporting other parties policy with going into coalition is a bit silly


I don’t think he ruled him out in 2014 is what I mean. Could be wrong.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=10703680


Quote:
Mr Key said he intended leading a positive, aspirational government in a second term.

"I don't see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead," he said at a press conference today.


"Historically, he has always been sacked by prime ministers. It's a very different style to mine and it's rearward-looking.


2014 is what Wilderbeast is talking about and he is right. John Key didn't rule out working with Winston Peters but was hoping to work with that loon from the Conservative Party instead.

Quote:
As for NZ First, Key said a post-election working relationship was "very unlikely, " but he wouldn't rule the possibility out before the election.

“In 2008 we ruled them out because we were unable to reconcile some of their statements on the Glenn donation matter. Six years has passed and, should New Zealand First be returned to Parliament, we would not rule out a discussion after the election," Key said.


Fair call

Didn't know that. But it has nothing to do with Clark and Key being a lot more butchering against dodgy MPs than a rather weak Ardern with Winston


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5271
I didn’t check the date :lol:

I owe you a beer Auckman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5271
Turfing Aaron Gilmore is not the bloody same as Ardern taking action on the Deputy PM who also heads her coalition party which she needs to form a government.

Seriously, it’s not rocket science


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
Wilderbeast wrote:
Turfing Aaron Gilmore is not the bloody same as Ardern taking action on the Deputy PM who also heads her coalition party which she needs to form a government.

Seriously, it’s not rocket science


Sweet

Ardern is just power hungry and can't do what her mentor did


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5939
Location: Vandean Coast
Jacinda is just doing what most politicians in the same boat would do.

Principles go overboard as soon as they might actually cost you something you don't want to give up


I guess it would be easier to stomach if she hadn't campaigned on being so lily white and having "nice" politics and a completely transparent government. Jacinda has to act to preserve the image she's cultivating
If Key does the same thing in the same situation, people already thought of him as a low-key weasel, so it's not as damaging to his image.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
deadduck wrote:
Jacinda is just doing what most politicians in the same boat would do.

Principles go overboard as soon as they might actually cost you something you don't want to give up


I guess it would be easier to stomach if she hadn't campaigned on being so lily white and having "nice" politics and a completely transparent government. Jacinda has to act to preserve the image she's cultivating
If Key does the same thing in the same situation, people already thought of him as a low-key weasel, so it's not as damaging to his image.


Except this is not true

Both Key and Clark would have stood him down from his roles about a week ago


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
guy smiley wrote:
Harvey, you and dark combined render this thread pretty much unreadable. Your hysterics shrieking about hardcore fanboys are overdone theatrics and hypocritical. Tone it down a bit and perhaps you’d get some engagement, otherwise it’s just not worth the effort.

As for ‘it’s an opinion piece’... well, yeah. It is and so is the rest of NZ media. There’s no reporting of substance done, it’s all just f**king hot air and the presenting of blogs as sources of authority is laughable.



The irony of you calling me out for this, in the early days of the Ardern government the puerile level of posting from people like you was something to behold. Post after post lauding someone who's life achievements were nil before entering parliament and making jokes about the "gnats" running out of mates to explain away the fact that we had a minority government that was necessarily what people voted for. The worst part of it was although I never thought National were all that the abject failure as a pm was predicted an has come true . One speech on March 15 is never going to cover that up.

What makes you think I'm dying to engage with you? The posts I've seen of yours pretty much match your assessment of the media here , every bit of seedy behaviour from labour is no big deal or ignored. I'll admit I've been ott in the oast, I'll certainly own that, but don't try and pretend you're somehow on some higher moral plane.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
eugenius wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Quiet week so I just popped in for a chuckle

Quote:
nationals appeared to involve donors rather than party members.


Just a wee clarification please Harvey - who did the donors give the money to?


Just a wee clarification whos being investigated? If it’s the donors then it’s not the national party . I’m not going to pretend National don’t at the very least play cute with the donations laws and they need to sort their own shit out. Eugenius was claiming Nationals was worse than NZ firsts which was actually five times the amount though . That’s what you do when your default setting is to always assume the other side is worse and yours can do no wrong.
If National are hiding donations I’m not going to defend it , unlike our resident labour fanboys with regards to the deputy pm



Please provide said links of the many pages I contributed to so manically .

I’m certainly not going to defend Winston on anything , I don’t like NZ first much at all .

I rather see them as a brake and contradiction to every thing progressive in this government.

I’ve criticised frustrated Tory Winnie a lot in the past .

Their ties to gambling and fisheries have been amongst the most destructive.

Of course National would have been utterly relaxed in accepting their coalition last election as well .

Perhaps Peters donations scam part 4 isn’t better than Nationals after all pound for pound , but are you really trying to convince that Bridges had no part whatsoever let alone knew nothing ?

I’m not sure that amounts are really more important rather than the shared intent .

As if you’ve posted previously in alarm at National own version of the same scam , pretty sure I remember you minimising it and shooting the messenger instead .

Hypocrisy about bias does you no favours .


Here we go again , scroll through this Eug and tell me you and Grouch weren't fapping yourselves into a pink mist over Dirty politics up until the election and also rather hilariously parrotting the myth amongst the left that the polls are always wrong viewtopic.php?f=3&t=47826&start=2680

Winston has been involved with Slater for three years and his minions are stalking whistleblower in your long winded post you still can't address it and you still cant bring yourself to admit its worse . The best you can do is "perhaps" really? $500000 isn't worse than $100000 ?

Lastly you don't like NZ first much? Winston has been a corrosive part of politics in NZ for 30 years , Labour knew that and still went into coalition with him , made him deputy pm and gave Shane Jones billions to squander and took cameras out of fishing boats to repay his fishing industry donors.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5939
Location: Vandean Coast
Dark wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Jacinda is just doing what most politicians in the same boat would do.

Principles go overboard as soon as they might actually cost you something you don't want to give up


I guess it would be easier to stomach if she hadn't campaigned on being so lily white and having "nice" politics and a completely transparent government. Jacinda has to act to preserve the image she's cultivating
If Key does the same thing in the same situation, people already thought of him as a low-key weasel, so it's not as damaging to his image.


Except this is not true

Both Key and Clark would have stood him down from his roles about a week ago


Unless you have a time machine or access to some kind of parallel universe your claim has no credibility and can be immediately discounted by anyone with an opposing view.
It's debate 101


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
eugenius wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Quiet week so I just popped in for a chuckle

Quote:
nationals appeared to involve donors rather than party members.


Just a wee clarification please Harvey - who did the donors give the money to?


Just a wee clarification whos being investigated? If it’s the donors then it’s not the national party . I’m not going to pretend National don’t at the very least play cute with the donations laws and they need to sort their own shit out. Eugenius was claiming Nationals was worse than NZ firsts which was actually five times the amount though . That’s what you do when your default setting is to always assume the other side is worse and yours can do no wrong.
If National are hiding donations I’m not going to defend it , unlike our resident labour fanboys with regards to the deputy pm



Please provide said links of the many pages I contributed to so manically .

I’m certainly not going to defend Winston on anything , I don’t like NZ first much at all .

I rather see them as a brake and contradiction to every thing progressive in this government.

I’ve criticised frustrated Tory Winnie a lot in the past .

Their ties to gambling and fisheries have been amongst the most destructive.

Of course National would have been utterly relaxed in accepting their coalition last election as well .

Perhaps Peters donations scam part 4 isn’t better than Nationals after all pound for pound , but are you really trying to convince that Bridges had no part whatsoever let alone knew nothing ?

I’m not sure that amounts are really more important rather than the shared intent .

As if you’ve posted previously in alarm at National own version of the same scam , pretty sure I remember you minimising it and shooting the messenger instead .

Hypocrisy about bias does you no favours .


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
deadduck wrote:
Dark wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Jacinda is just doing what most politicians in the same boat would do.

Principles go overboard as soon as they might actually cost you something you don't want to give up


I guess it would be easier to stomach if she hadn't campaigned on being so lily white and having "nice" politics and a completely transparent government. Jacinda has to act to preserve the image she's cultivating
If Key does the same thing in the same situation, people already thought of him as a low-key weasel, so it's not as damaging to his image.


Except this is not true

Both Key and Clark would have stood him down from his roles about a week ago


Unless you have a time machine or access to some kind of parallel universe your claim has no credibility and can be immediately discounted by anyone with an opposing view.
It's debate 101


Clark did in similar circumstances.

She had more balls than Ardern, Bridges and Shaw combined


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
Should clarify that

The only reason I think Bridges ruled out Winston is because Winston can't not go with the fish and chip chick at the end of he year


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7746
Image

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7746
Serious question. If a cabal could be arranged could Eugenius, Guy Smiley, Dark and Harvey sit down and have a beer together?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5939
Location: Vandean Coast
I'm not convinced they're more than one person


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
booji boy wrote:
Serious question. If a cabal could be arranged could Eugenius, Guy Smiley, Dark and Harvey sit down and have a beer together?



Yes, but I would insist on Eug' not wearing his Ardern is the bestest PM ever! T-shirt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 4324
Location: NZ
booji boy wrote:
Serious question. If a cabal could be arranged could Eugenius, Guy Smiley, Dark and Harvey sit down and have a beer together?



And he buys the first round


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:20 am
Posts: 1445
Location: From the Hutt bro.
deadduck wrote:
I'm not convinced they're more than one person


:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5271
Another opinion piece on Winston and the Labour/Green silence. Another piece I agree with.

Edit: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -them-down


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7746
Wilderbeast wrote:
Another opinion piece on Winston and the Labour/Green silence. Another piece I agree with.

Edit: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -them-down


Hard to argue with any of that.

Journalists are an annoying bunch of twats though. In my admittedly limited experience with them you have to be very careful what you say to them because they will go on to mis quote you or completely misrepresent what you were actually trying to say. Once bitten twice shy so you find the best option is to just refuse to deal with them, if that's an option, just zip it and give them "No comment".

Robbie Dean's was a master at this. Used to enjoy seeing him on TV with journalists pestering him asking him questions and he wouldn't even look at them or give them the courtesy of "No comment". He just carried on his business as if they weren't even there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
Fortunately we know Ardern gets her news from the Spinoff so she might read this have some idea of how bad she sounded on RNZ this morning .

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-02 ... ssion=true


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
deadduck wrote:
I'm not convinced they're more than one person


We aren’t .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5632
POLITICS
Not one, but two $100k donations to National in court

The Serious Fraud Office prosecution of four people over donations to the National Party involves not one but two $100,000 donations - in June 2017 and June 2018.

Court charging documents released to the media by order of Auckland District Court Judge Edwin Paul today show that three of the four defendants - whose names are suppressed ahead of a hearing next week - each face two joint charges of deception over a sum of $100,000 donated to National in 2017 and $100,050 donated to the party in 2018. The maximum penalty if convicted on the charge is seven years' imprisonment.

The fourth person is charged jointly with the others only over the second $100,050 donation - but also faces one charge of providing misleading information to the SFO.

Lawyers for the defendants had opposed media having access to documents on the court file.

The SFO's wording for the joint deception charges says: "By deception or without claim of right directly or indirectly obtained for the National Party possession of, or control over, any property, namely a $100,050 [for the 2018 charge] donation made to the National Party between June 1, 2018 and June 8, 2018 ("the 2018 donation") in circumstances where the identity of the donor was not disclosed in the National Party's Annual Return of Party Donations."

The SFO describes the offending over the donations in these words: "The defendants adopted a fraudulent device, trick or stratagem whereby the ... donation was split into sums of money less than $15,000 and transferred into bank accounts of eight different people before being paid to, and retained by, the National Party."

For the fourth person's charge of misleading the SFO, the charging document says: "In the course of complying with a requirement ... of the Serious Fraud Act 1990 supplied information knowing it was false or misleading in a material particular."

The SFO says of that charge that this defendant told investigators a $100,000 sum transferred to their account was a deposit for a building on another person's property - when the money had been intended as a donation to the National Party. Further, in 2019 the defendant created, signed and back-dated a contract to that end, when no real contract for that work existed. The office alleges the made-up contract copied wording from an unrelated contract.

The four defendants are due to make their first appearance in the Auckland District Court next Tuesday, February 25. They received interim name suppression from Judge Paul on January 31 after indications two media outlets intended to name those charged.

A political scandal late in 2018 over what was publicly thought to be one alleged $100,000 donation led to the police referring the matter to the SFO.

Last month, the SFO said it had filed criminal charges against four people "in relation to donations paid into a National Party electorate bank account".

National's leader Simon Bridges said at the time that "as expected", neither he nor his party had been charged following the investigation.

“I have always maintained I had nothing to do with the donations. As I have always said, the allegations against both myself and the party were baseless and false,” he said.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9538
Location: Texas
eugenius wrote:
National's leader Simon Bridges said at the time that "as expected", neither he nor his party had been charged following the investigation.

“I have always maintained I had nothing to do with the donations. As I have always said, the allegations against both myself and the party were baseless and false,” he said.
Very carefully worded, does he have a spouse to blame (like Dalziel) or is it possible for party officials to be charged entirely separate to the organization?

I would have thought there would be some vicarious liability exposure unless National demonstrated the individuals were acting independently and without authorization.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
eugenius wrote:
POLITICS
Not one, but two $100k donations to National in court

The Serious Fraud Office prosecution of four people over donations to the National Party involves not one but two $100,000 donations - in June 2017 and June 2018.

Court charging documents released to the media by order of Auckland District Court Judge Edwin Paul today show that three of the four defendants - whose names are suppressed ahead of a hearing next week - each face two joint charges of deception over a sum of $100,000 donated to National in 2017 and $100,050 donated to the party in 2018. The maximum penalty if convicted on the charge is seven years' imprisonment.

The fourth person is charged jointly with the others only over the second $100,050 donation - but also faces one charge of providing misleading information to the SFO.

Lawyers for the defendants had opposed media having access to documents on the court file.

The SFO's wording for the joint deception charges says: "By deception or without claim of right directly or indirectly obtained for the National Party possession of, or control over, any property, namely a $100,050 [for the 2018 charge] donation made to the National Party between June 1, 2018 and June 8, 2018 ("the 2018 donation") in circumstances where the identity of the donor was not disclosed in the National Party's Annual Return of Party Donations."

The SFO describes the offending over the donations in these words: "The defendants adopted a fraudulent device, trick or stratagem whereby the ... donation was split into sums of money less than $15,000 and transferred into bank accounts of eight different people before being paid to, and retained by, the National Party."

For the fourth person's charge of misleading the SFO, the charging document says: "In the course of complying with a requirement ... of the Serious Fraud Act 1990 supplied information knowing it was false or misleading in a material particular."

The SFO says of that charge that this defendant told investigators a $100,000 sum transferred to their account was a deposit for a building on another person's property - when the money had been intended as a donation to the National Party. Further, in 2019 the defendant created, signed and back-dated a contract to that end, when no real contract for that work existed. The office alleges the made-up contract copied wording from an unrelated contract.

The four defendants are due to make their first appearance in the Auckland District Court next Tuesday, February 25. They received interim name suppression from Judge Paul on January 31 after indications two media outlets intended to name those charged.

A political scandal late in 2018 over what was publicly thought to be one alleged $100,000 donation led to the police referring the matter to the SFO.

Last month, the SFO said it had filed criminal charges against four people "in relation to donations paid into a National Party electorate bank account".

National's leader Simon Bridges said at the time that "as expected", neither he nor his party had been charged following the investigation.

“I have always maintained I had nothing to do with the donations. As I have always said, the allegations against both myself and the party were baseless and false,” he said.





Wow. Still not $500000, but I assume worse in your mind because its the "gnats".

So I can take it you've given up trying to pretend you weren't absolutely consumed by dirty Politics and your distaste for Cameron Slater ?

Anyway back to Arderns lack of integrity, this on RNZ yesterday. You must be so proud Eug, most open and transparent government ever, remember Eug she says she never lies



Quote:
Susie Ferguson: If we can move to the photos of Guyon Espiner and Matt Shand that appeared on the BFD website. Winston Peters said last week, quote, “We took the photos.” Is it acceptable for your deputy prime minister to be involved in this – photos of journalists which end up on a blog associated with Whale Oil?

Jacinda Ardern: Again, these are ultimately questions – actually his most recent statement, most people would have seen, was publicly made, to claim that a supporter did. So just to clarify that.

But actually these aren’t matters for me. Ultimately these are matters for New Zealand First. I run –

They are, though. They are matters for you. This is your deputy prime minister.

Yes, indeed. I’m the prime minister of the government. I do not run three separate political parties. So I don’t think it’s unfair or unreasonable to say these are matters for New Zealand First, not for me. Yes, I have a personal view on blogs like that. They’re not something that I –

What’s your personal view?

– Choose to engage with, or would have the Labour Party engage with. I don’t believe in them, I think they tend to engage in, you know, mud-slinging. And that’s not how I do politics.

Is Winston Peters upholding the highest ethical standards, as outlined in the Cabinet Manual?

Again, this is not relevant to the role he plays as minister of foreign affairs, and that is where my role lies –

Minister of foreign affairs. He’s deputy prime minister. He’s a member of the cabinet. I’m asking you directly about the Cabinet Manual.

You are, and, no, he maintains the role he needs to maintain appropriately, as minister for foreign affairs. You’re asking questions of him as leader of a political party, and Susie –

No I’m not. I’m asking questions of him as a member of the cabinet that you run.

Again, these are matters for him. I don’t even have clarity over who took them, how they got on a blog –

So have you had no conversations with Winston Peters since this story broke about this? You have no clarity about this?

Susie I can hear that this is obviously something very personal for Radio New Zealand, but these aren’t matters that I have any responsibility for. I’m the leader of the Labour Party. I have nothing to do with it. I’m not going to stand here and explain it or defend it. It’s not for me.

So despite the fact that he’s in your cabinet, despite the fact that he’s the deputy prime minister, he stands in for you when you are not here, this is not a matter for you?

I’ve already made my position on this utterly clear. This is not a matter for me. It is not something I hold information on. It is not conduct I’ve been engaged in. No, I don’t see these as things being explicit to the Cabinet Manual, which is the conduct of how we run the government. Ultimately in an MMP environment I will have separate political parties. They are in charge of their own conduct as parties and party leaders –

What’s your view about whether it has a chilling effect on democracy or not, prime minister?

– I cannot run both a government and three political parties. I’ve already made clear my view on blogs of that nature and their use in New Zealand. That is my view, and my view as the Labour leader. But for the rest, you need to speak to Winston Peters.

So he is safe in his portfolios, then?

Yes, he is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
Even Hayley Holts worship of the Jassiah seems to be dimming a bit . Note the part where she says to Holt that it's the first time she's heard about the photos. Another lie, she commented on them four days earlier . How long did she work for Blair again?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... ontroversy


Quote:
Hayley Holt: The Electoral Commission announced that it believed some of the donations to the NZ First Foundation should have been declared … It is an election year, when showing leadership is imperative. Why have you decided to stay silent?

Jacinda Ardern: Oh, well certainly I haven’t stayed silent. I’m pretty sure I may have even been asked by your reporters about this issue a number of times. And I’ve been very clear that yes it has been referred to the Serious Fraud Office, in the same way that we’ve had the same process for the National Party in recent times. But no final decision on whether there’s been any offending here has been made. And so I don’t want to be premature, and I don’t want to get in front of even decisions made by the independent agency who are here to make these decisions. They need to determine what’s gone on here, and whether there’s been an offence, and if so, who committed it. Anything in front of that would be premature.

Well you don’t have to allege criminal conduct in order to comment about whether you thought donations should have been declared. Are you holding back because you know that you need –

Hayley, I’m just going to stop you there, I’m just going to stop you there, because you haven’t completed what the Electoral Commission then went on to say. They then said they haven’t been able to determine whether that constituted an offence. That’s why they’ve handed it over to someone else to have a look at, so you’re asking me to apply a moral judgement here without an evidence base, and I don’t think that’s entirely fair.

Is it also though because you know that you need NZ First in order to form a government after the election?

Nope.

Nope, OK, great answer.

It’s one of the shortest answers I’ve ever given you.

Yes, you’ve also been sort of very diplomatic, should I say, or short on questions around NZ First flip flopping over their involvement in covertly taking photographs of journalists who are working on this story. Do you think you could have asked Winston Peters for a full explanation?

Oh actually on that, I’ve only been asked about that this morning. It’s the first time I’ve been asked questions on it. And so from my perspective, look I’ve seen the things he’s put out publicly on that. Keeping in mind, the only time I’ve seen him since that time was at a distance at a funeral. Look ultimately what he has said here is that a supporter took a photo. Beyond that, I’m not familiar with the details, but nor do I see that as my role. The distinction here – I run the government. Individual party leaders need to be responsible for their own management of their own political parties.

He’s also a government minister –

I have a personal view on the blog here in question. It’s not something that I favour the use of. I don’t like those blogs, I don’t think they add anything to New Zealand or politics. But those are decisions for political party leaders, and so questions for Winston Peters. Yes he is a minister. My job though in the maintenance of the cabinet manual is the conduct of ministers in their portfolios. And so these are questions for a political party leader.

There’s also a section about ministers upholding and being seen to uphold the highest ethical standards at all times. Do you think it could have been worth a phone call at least to Winston Peters?

So, look, in an election year – in an election year, we’re going to have a number of these kinds of situations. There’s going to be some mud-slinging back and forth. My job is to make sure I run the government, that I do that well. Political parties and their leaders need to be responsible for the management of their own parties. So, yes, you have questions around how that photo ended up on that blog, but that is a question for the leader of NZ First, not for me.



Newstalk ZB: Mike Hosking Breakfast
Mike Hosking: Is Winston taking photos of journalists of concern to you in any way shape or form?

Jacinda Ardern: Well, I’d add this disclaimer here that these questions go to him himself. Of course I did see –

Having trouble reaching him at the moment? He seems to have gone to ground funnily enough.

I did see, I did see or at least a report of his last tweet on this which clarified that it was a party member, or a supporter I believe. I think was the turn of phrase that he used.


Are you concerned about the turn of events in your coalition partner though?

No, look, ultimately, I am in charge of the government, I do not take the personal responsibility of the conduct of different political parties, that would just be an overstep, and nor the expectation of what I would have of running the government. But ultimately, I do have a personal view on those blogs. I’m not a fan. I certainly would have no expectation that the Labour party would have any use of them, but those are matters for New Zealand First.

But he does fall under the auspices of your control, as deputy prime minister, doesn’t he?

Yes, but ultimately, that’s the conduct under which he’s maintaining his portfolios. A job he does as minister of foreign affairs and so on. This is a matter with the NZ First party, their ex-president, and conduct around that, and it would simply not be the expectation of taxpayers that I’d manage three parties as well as the government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5271
You can’t really expect Eugenius to directly respond to this when you aren’t taking the National SFO case seriously. You’re both as bad as each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5632
:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:18 pm
Posts: 1561
1. Rules 're donations established by parliament.
2. Parliamentary rules ignored by two parties
3. Nobody knows about it
4. Courts involved
5. Ra ra teams finger pointing from the sideline
6. Media stirring the shitpile

If this was sport, they'd have breached the salary cap....
Like sport it's a 1-1 tie ..... ....and both lots are cheating cnuts.
Like sport, stand them both down for a year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
Wilderbeast wrote:
You can’t really expect Eugenius to directly respond to this when you aren’t taking the National SFO case seriously. You’re both as bad as each other.


What makes you think I’m not taking it seriously? what’s been revealed so far sounds dodgy . Eug tried to make out it was worse than the NZ first foundation which on a dollar for dollar basis hasn’t even reached half of NZ firsts dodginess . Doesn’t mean I condone or excuse it though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
So a trustee for the NZ first foundation was also acting as a lobbyist for a property development firm to get a law changed . Once the law was changed they made a series of donations 1cent under the disclosure threshold.

https://amp.rnz.co.nz/article/654cadac- ... ssion=true

Sounds totally legit .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:18 pm
Posts: 1561
and.........fcuk ALL lobbiests......greedy cnuts! They don't give a flying shit about NZ or NZers.....only there to line their own pockets.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5632
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
You can’t really expect Eugenius to directly respond to this when you aren’t taking the National SFO case seriously. You’re both as bad as each other.


What makes you think I’m not taking it seriously? what’s been revealed so far sounds dodgy . Eug tried to make out it was worse than the NZ first foundation which on a dollar for dollar basis hasn’t even reached half of NZ firsts dodginess . Doesn’t mean I condone or excuse it though.



You certainly exactly didn’t bring it to the boreds attention tho did ya ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20030
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
terangi48 wrote:
1. Rules 're donations established by parliament.
2. Parliamentary rules ignored by two parties
3. Nobody knows about it
4. Courts involved
5. Ra ra teams finger pointing from the sideline
6. Media stirring the shitpile

If this was sport, they'd have breached the salary cap....
Like sport it's a 1-1 tie ..... ....and both lots are cheating cnuts.
Like sport, stand them both down for a year.


They're all cheating cnuts.

National "forgot" about including GST on election spending. Labour used the PM's budget in addition to the allowed election spending. And didn't one of the parties do something illegal "in error" and then change the law to make it legal after the fact? I forget the details now. May have been one of the above.

It's the old joke.

"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
"Their lips are moving."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7746
terangi48 wrote:
1. Rules 're donations established by parliament.
2. Parliamentary rules ignored by two parties
3. Nobody knows about it
4. Courts involved
5. Ra ra teams finger pointing from the sideline
6. Media stirring the shitpile

If this was sport, they'd have breached the salary cap....
Like sport it's a 1-1 tie ..... ....and both lots are cheating cnuts.
Like sport, stand them both down for a year.


Well voters will stand one of them down for 3 years and the other will get away with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 535
eugenius wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
You can’t really expect Eugenius to directly respond to this when you aren’t taking the National SFO case seriously. You’re both as bad as each other.


What makes you think I’m not taking it seriously? what’s been revealed so far sounds dodgy . Eug tried to make out it was worse than the NZ first foundation which on a dollar for dollar basis hasn’t even reached half of NZ firsts dodginess . Doesn’t mean I condone or excuse it though.



You certainly exactly didn’t bring it to the boreds attention tho did ya ?



So can you point out to me where I’m under any sort of obligation to do so?

Did you bring the boards attention to the pms chief of staff being a lobbyist, about any of the many many stories involving seedy behaviour towards junior labour staffers , to the SFO investigation into the NZ first foundation , Winston using whaleoil to attack whistle blowers and journalists?

No you didn’t , mostly lyou pretended none of this happened or at best deflected so probably best you don’t criticise me for something you’d never do yourself .

Back to national , i still can’t see any reference to anyone in the party being charged . Still looks like donors , one of which is in some serious shit for producing false documents regarding one of the donations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18821
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Seems to be that rorting the system is the way to go

All those in favour of outlawing donations to political parties and making their expenses taxpayer funded?

As much as I would like that, how the hell does a new party establish a foothold?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25055 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574 ... 627  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 6.Jones, Alba, Banana Man, Bogbunny, Boomslang, camroc1, Conspicuous, DOB, DragsterDriver, Flockwitt, Gavin Duffy, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, inactionman, Keith, Laurent, madman, Man In Black, Mog The Almighty, Newby1, Nieghorn, Petej, Reuser, RodneyRegis, SilverGrin, Stevus55, ticketlessinseattle, Troll, YOYO and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group