sagenz

Lies will get you eventually - Helen Clark beware

Troubled Hungarian PM fights on.

At least 20,000 people attended a rally in the capital on Saturday - one of the biggest in a wave of demonstrations.

Getting 20,000 people to a rally in Budapest indicates people are seriously upset by the lies.  I think people had stayed away after the violence got out of hand and people did not want to be associated with it.  The feeling in Hungary remains that Gyurcsany will not be forced to step down.  My feeling is that the pressure will mount till local elections which occur soon.  If the socialists really do badly in that they may be looking to make changes.  The other feeling is that everything is how about who has keys to the treasury so they can steal more.

I was going to add that fortunately we do not have that kind of corruption in New Zealand, yet but then I realised we do.

Will Labour recognise criticism like this is valid?

Waters signs off with blast on economy . Now that he is out of reach of the vindictive helengrad he feels able to open his mouth.  He has no axe to grind but obviously has a deep and non partisan appreciation.

Outgoing Fletcher Building chief executive Ralph Waters has fired a parting salvo at New Zealand's economic and political direction, saying the country is complacent and oblivious to a range of problems. He used his farewell to launch an assault on the Government, saying it was weak and incapable of pushing through major changes to benefit New Zealanders. His list of criticisms included a soaring national debt burden, anti-business policies, a Government afraid of taking tough decisions, an uncertain electricity supply and too few successful companies expanding overseas

Molloy is on the case. Clark is fecked for the first time in her life

Excellent news for Darnton v Clark.  Bernard Darnton has an excellent Qc to screw them over. High profile Auckland QC Tony Molloy is spearheading a legal claim against Prime Minister Helen Clark and 50 Labour Party MPs over the alleged unlawful pledge card spending..

With a QC of his standing on the case they is screwed :-) :-) :-)

Why are New Zealanders angry? Labour is corrupt

Just Left: Why are we angry? tries and fails to explain why things are so angry right now.  He would be better reading the Dominion Post. We are angry because helengrad is corrupt.

As the comments on the blogs and the fracas this week in politics makes clear, the people in the bubble that is national politics are a bunch of angry bees at the moment.

AJ - so outside the political bubble people dont care?  81% care enough to have formed an opinion that labour stole money from the taxpayer and should pay it back.  Perhaps you are the one who should get out more.

Jordan I wonder if you have read Hayek's The road to serfdom.  You, chris trotter and the labour leaders are obviously true socialists who follow the theory that the ends justifies the means.  It does not matter what crimes or atrocities an individual commits as long as it is for the "greater good".  On that basis stealing from the taxpayer to fund an election is quite justifiable.

Hayek talks about how socialists like yourself corrupt words to fool the masses into believing that their motives are pure.  That has worked for 7 long years.  Your posturing about it being related to policy is a further attempt to sully the waters.  It is interesting that Labour are angry but nowhere in your post do you give any reason why Labour should be angry.  They are in power.  They have no reason to be angry.  National would have reason.  National is angry because Labour cheated, lied and stole the election.  Labour are angry because, in the words of the Dom Post, they are cornered rats. 

But the reality is that the voters eyes have been opened.  Your leader has been revealed as a liar, a fraud, and a thief with no loyalty and no honour. Now that voters have concluded she is wrong on one thing, the whole edifice will come crumbling down.  Voters will not accept her brusque commands to move on from every scandal any more.

Labour managed to smear Dr Brash with links to the EB over an honest failure to link the question at hand with previous discussions.  He corrected that and maintained his integrity when he realised the error.  It may have cost him the election even despite the stolen funding.

Labour will no doubt pay the money back and then try to pretend that had been their intention the whole time.  Field will bumble along till the next election denying and not understanding what he has done wrong, left there by Clarks willingness to accept corrupt behaviour as long as it serves the cause.  To an extent she is hoist on her own petard.  She cannot get rid of Field because of her own corrupt behaviour. 

So far you have been lucky in the polls.  Enough voters believed the lies and the spin.  But over the next 2 years more and more swing voters will see helengrad for what it really is.  The realisation that 81% of voters also think the theft was wrong will be enough to convince people that other spin is really just lies.

The media were just like voters.  Journalists are traditionally left leaning and really made life easier for Labour, following the spin and the party line.  For lefties now to be claiming that MSM are pro business, pro tax cut and beholden to national is just fatuous.  But with Labour & Cullen's paranoid, bullying tactics the worm has truly turned.

You may think it is painful now.  But the next 2 years does not hold any relief.  When 81% of the population, including Idiot/Savant and Russell Brown think the money should be repaid and Fields behaviour was unacceptable it means Labour are wrong.  It also validates the position taken by National and Dr Brash.  Labour has descended to the gutter with its cheap and nasty attempts at blackmail. 

So now there is an additional reason for anger among National politicians and supporters.  There is no reason to hold back for the good of the country.  The best long term interests of the country will be served by clearing out this lying, corrupt bunch of thieves.

I suggest that Jordan and Tony Milne take a week out, examine your conscience and conclude whether you can really continue being lickspittle apologists for the indefensible.  Hayek shows how your sort of blindly following the party line leads to an authoritarian state where the self appointed elite determine everything. Follow Trotters logic far enough and you have no need for democratic elections.  The people might bring back the "wrong" result.

Should donations be anonymous?

Aaron Bhatnagar over at Sir Humphrey's defends anonymouse donations

The hysteria about anonymous donations to political parties has been building as a part of Labour's desperate offensive against National to spin its way out of its election spending issues.

I have to disagree with you Aaron. 

Parties should be and be seen to be independent of donor influence.  This means the public knowing the provenance of funding.

Insolent's example aside sunshine is a better policy.  If a company or individual wants to make a donation to a party it means they agree with their policies or there is a quid pro quo.  See the recent Labour Party in the UK selling honours.  Either way the possibility is that there may be an explicit or implicit vested interest.  it is better that the public knows who is giving to a party.  In the case of the National Party there is going to be nothing to hide.  If as an example the public disclosure of an insurance company donation to National for reform of ACC ( as has been much touted by the left moonbats) were to cause public consternation then it is probably better that the donation did not take place.  Cullen's outbursts are mainly bluster.  There are courts to compensate for organisations that are excluded from bidding processes. 

On balance the power of sunshine and disclosure adds to democracy rather than subtracts.  it is the abuse like Cullens that should be regulated rather than the preservation of a system that encourages conspiracy allegations. 

The simple way to reduce the impact of "buying" elections is to place achievable limits on fundraising and expenditure within a certain (eg 3 month) period of an election.  That is what exists today and more reasoned comment would ensure that people understand the playing field was actually level.  There seems a need for a truly independent panel comprised of judges,GG, AG, Chief Electoral Officer, PM, leader of official opposition and others to administer the conduct of elections.  At present  the government has been able to get away with corruption due to the lack of a senior enough institution to control Labour's abuse.

As it happens I also favour disclosure in the Norwegian manner of tax paid and dealings with the government.  We might be less inclined to believe so called experts when we see how deeply their snouts are in the trough.

Darnton vs Clark - Labour’s Defence is pathetic

Darnton vs Clark -Labour’s Defence has been submitted.  My comment at the site is reproduced below.

What is revealing is that there is nothing in the statement of defense that rebuts the charges. It simply says the law is the law, your opinion is we did not comply, our opinion is we did comply. They will try to finesse you out of a courtroom by arguing it is a question of privilege. That is why they are trying to exclude Speaker Wilson. Effectively they are relying on their being able to influence a judge to find they are within the law. Given the number of authorities (everyone bar the police) that have found the expenditure was illegal it would seem you now have a very high chance of technical success. What is the implication of the defendants being forced to issue the declaration that the spending breached the various acts you name in the statement of claim. Aside from looking politically ridiculous and forcing them to pay it back are there further constitutional implications?

Cullen is a bully and has lost the plot

I was absolutely gobsmacked to read this. Complete banana republic stuff.  Imagine threatening the media with tax affairs.  Cullen is threatening the herald with rethinking a tax adjustment on the basis of their criticism of him.  Does his arrogance have no bounds?

While the 2003 determination restated the principle that Parliamentary Service funding was intended for parliamentary purposes, Dr Cullen said, "What is complicated is exactly what is included as parliamentary purposes".

"The Herald would be wise to consider the consistency of its position," he added. "The owners of the Herald recently found themselves liable to a very large tax bill even though they could reasonably argue that the transaction which triggered it would not at the time have done so according to the general understanding of the law. "As a result the Government has agreed to support legislation which effectively retrospectively validates that understanding and relieves the Herald's owners of the bill."

He said the bill would pay for a large number of elective operations.

Herald has own 'spin' says Cullen . Fortunately Dr Brash had a similar opinion to my own.

National leader Don Brash said of Dr Cullen's comparison: "Anything more directly intimidatory or bullying it would be hard to imagine. "He seems to be threatening APN with a major tax obligation unless you guys toe the Labour Party line."

Clark is certainly corrupt enough to get the top UN job

Fran O'Sullivan: Is Helen Clark positioning herself as Asia-Pacific's candidate for the top United Nations job?.

Helen Clark is certainly corrupt enough to get the job.  That seems to be what you need to succeed at the UN.  Perhaps she will be teaching those despots a thing or two about rolling the punters.

Surely there is a better candidate out there than Clark.

Fran O'Sullivan: Gutless police give up on party spending rorts

An excellent piece from Fran O'Sullivan: Gutless police give up on party spending rorts. After my recent brickbats, consider this a bouquet.

Detective Inspector Harry Quinn - the chief police officer on this task - opined that a proven breach could ultimately impact upon the "integrity of last year's election". It was concerns over the "integrity of last year's election" that prompted then Chief Electoral Officer David Henry to call police in to investigate what appeared to be (and still does) flagrant Electoral Act breaches by Labour and National after the parties ignored pre-election warnings against exceeding their publicity funding limits.

There is clearly a greater degree of separation required between the power to appoint members of law enforcement and the judiciary and the executive.

It is not just about being fair, it is also about being seen to be fair.  And when there is such a widespread condemnation of lack of police action there is clearly a problem with the second let alone the first. The only mildly plausible argument for not having pursued would be the thought that since both major parties were probably guilty the only impact would be to reduce the public confidence in the political system.  This is precisely the wrong approach.  There are many New Zealanders who have seen H1 escape prosecution time after time.  that has reduced confidence in the legal system as a whole.  Cabinet are above the law?  They should not be.

The question is how to deal with it. H1 & H2 are in the position of power and do not understand the issue let alone consider they should do anything about it.  The only solution is a change of government and a clear message from the voter that they want judicial independence.  National might be spurred to reduce their own power and increase the level of independence of the judiciary so that these abuses of power are punished not overlooked.

labour is now bribing voters

Does anybody really think this has anything to do with natural Justice? Government set to return Waikato to Tainui .  When Doug Graham gave Cook back to Ngai Tahu it was immediately gifted back to the nation.  Tainui have had a settlement and achieved justice.

Mr Brownlee also accused the Government of using negotiations to reward Nanaia Mahuta for changing her stance on the foreshore legislation. Ms Mahuta, now a Cabinet minister, retained her Tainui seat after fending off a strong campaign by Maori Party candidate Angeline Greensill in last year's general election.

This is about using taxpayers funds to achieve a political advantage.  Bribery.