Monday, December 31, 2007

Just When You Thought.............

Unbelievable!!!!!
Just when you thought Labour had reached the nadir of cynical political opportunism, just when you thought they might wake up to the adverse messages they have sent to voters, they pull a boner like this.

Owen Glenn. Photo / Greg Bowker


They have knighted their biggest donor, Owen Glenn - a rich prick who hasn't lived in New Zealand for how many decades?

Labour's political strategy book is being written for them by John Key.

15 comments:

PM of NZ said...

One sided buggers!

The EB apparently 'gave' double that and maybe more, we have been told on more than one occasion, purportedly 'for services to the business community', but don't seem to have got a mention in despatches anywhere.

Mark said...

Owen must be pissed that Labour did away with Knighthoods.

Or would they have been worth more?

Psycho Milt said...

Of course, we don't know how many of these awards National's given its donors over the years, because those donors prefer to conceal their identities (from the public, not from National). No moral high ground to occupy here, Nats.

George said...

It is business as usual, no matter which political crew is in power.

The higher echelon awards "come up with the rations" to the donors, sycophants, perfumed princes and PC flunkies of those on the beltway cocktail list.

Generally speaking you have to look at the minor awards and the Military List to see the true worthies and servants of NZ and its people.

Sean said...

"No moral high ground to occupy here, Nats."

Psycho Milt - some evidence possibly?...or even some speculation would be a nice start.

Grant S said...

"Psycho Milt - some evidence possibly?...or even some speculation would be a nice start."

Shit no, this is Leftism 101 in action. Simply make shit up on a whim, tell it often enough and loud enough, and hope that the proles start to believe it. Labour good, Nats bad - two legs bad, four legs good. So doctrinaire.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Apparently he's a bloody Pom to boot. Wasn't even born here and buggered off the day he left school.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Owen Glenn the sort of person we should be aspiring to be... self-made millionaire...? From the bitching going on here anyone would think that he was a unionist!

Anonymous said...

PM - and if the Nats donors all shouted out who they were and were then 'knighted' would you be the first to scream corruption or whatever word you put on it?

I bet you would!

Psycho Milt said...

Sean: you can see the level of Nat Party funding by trusts here. The whole point of channeling the funding through trusts is so that the actual donors are anonymous to the public but not to National. All entirely legal, as Russel Norman pointed out:

After I laid a compaint with the police, about the revelations in Nicky Hager’s book that the National Party board knew the identity of the donors behind the secret trusts, the solicitor general ruled that it is legal for National to funnel donations through the secret trusts so that the public does not know who the donors are but the National Party does. So there is nothing illegal in National doing this.

Nothing illegal, certainly. But there's then no moral high ground to occupy if they want to accuse Labour of rewarding its funders - because the only explanation for the Nats' donors remaining private is so that the public fails to make exactly that kind of connection with the people National rewards.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

"....because the only explanation for the Nats' donors remaining private is so that the public fails to make exactly that kind of connection with the people National rewards."

Well no Milt, it's not the only explanation. The real reason is to prevent the sort of aggressive vindictive action by pricks in power against those who have supported 'the enemy.'

Sean said...

Well Psycho, that all may or may not well be true (and you have referred to Nicky Hager, hardly sturdy ground) but what we want to know is have any of these donors been rewarded with a New years Honour under a National govt? That was the original query. Stating you're not sure because it was all so secret indicates nothing either way. You cannot even say the Nats cannot claim the higher ground because it appears you do not know if any of their donor received Honours or not.

Psycho Milt said...

...it appears you do not know if any of their donor received Honours or not.

Sean, that's exactly the point! Let's step through it:

1. National supporters are claiming Labour has rewarded somebody for donating to Labour.

2. But for all we know, National may have spent decades doing the same thing. The thing is, we don't know, because they conceal the sources of their funding.

3. So: before anyone on the National side criticises Labour for rewarding donors, let's see a list of who paid what to National during the 1990 - 1999 election campaigns, so we can compare it to a list of honours awarded by National govts over that time. If they show up clean, let 'em fire away - but I don't think Labour would have a whole lot of worries on that score.

The alternative is, we let National make political capital out of Labour having transparent funding, while retaining secret funding themselves. Bollocks to that.

dad4justice said...

hey psycho , need any bricks ?

Sean said...

Hi Psycho - yes I understand all that. My point being that since we have no idea whether or not a National led appointments and honours committee gave out any awards to National party contributers, you are not in any position to imply they may have. You should have at least a suspicious case to refer to before commenting "No moral high ground to occupy here, Nats.".

Anyway, I am sure we will start to get into semantics if we go any further.

Thanks for that link to the party donations. I have to say I was surprised, in that I am wondering what all the hoopla is about. Huckerbee raises $US4m in one day, which is more than all the NZ parties combined in 2005. National receives $1.8M, about double Labour. Wow, so what. We are such a pathetic society sometimes.