Sunday, August 31, 2008

No Ethics, No Morals, No Shame. Labour

Good grief. No wonder Labour has insulted and slandered Own Glenn. He's quite rightly turned the money tap off on them after they had the cheek to go back asking for more just three months ago! The slandering of Owen Glenn last week was the most outrageous and disgusting display of churlishness and raw opportunism one could imagine. He was their biggest financial supporter.



Because all the people in Labour have spent all their lives cloistered in unions or universities, they don't realise that real people in the real world know how to recognise when they have backed a loser. Owen Glenn certainly has.

Now that Labour has publicly denigrated him and cast aspersions upon his character, they can expect nothing to be held back at the privileges committee this week. He should be asked to show the committee Helen Clark's tooth marks on his 'once were generous' hands.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Asked if the donations were declared, Peter Williams said, "Oh, I don't know about that rubbish

This is the kind of immoral, born to rule wankers these people are.

Headline - Parliamentary rules rubbish according to Peter's lawyer.

They really think they're just going to brazen all this out.

I'm almost speechless at their chutzpa.

But anyway, now that we know the rules are made to be broken and that if the IRD, for instance, doesn't do their homework then you really don't have to declare all your income I think I'll go and redo my taxes.

Psycho Milt said...

Yes, I personally think Labour should adopt the morality and ethics of the National Party, and establish trusts to anonymise its donors. How clean and shiny one looks after all these unsavoury money-grubbing matters are simply concealed from public view. After all, in politics a public appearance of morality is far more important than behaving morally.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

"No Ethics, No Morals, No Shame. Labour"

Sounds like Labour's advertising campaign. No doubt Heather Simpson will be submitting a claim to parliamentary services to pay for that advertising campaign imminently. Nothing quite like other people's money.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt I agree with you entirely. Then both Labour and NZ First would have declared all their donations instead of hiding behind conveniently forgotten $100k loans which may or may not have been repaid, or secret trusts and cheque cashing facilities.

Anonymous said...

So Milt - Obviously in your new personal 'Rover' wisdom you can point us to where National have received donations then split them up into small amounts and not declared them at all?

No?

Must be apples and oranges day.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Indeed Adolf, would be this be the same Owen Glenn that Liarbour now says cannot tell the differenc between Howard Morrison and Winston Peters as those brown boys all look the same!
The one that Cullen declares 'confused.'
Kiwiblog covered the issue on Friday.

Psycho Milt said...

Anonymous thicko: the whole point of anonymising them behind a trust is so that such activities can't be discovered and paraded through the news media for opposing political parties to make hay with. NZ First are stupider than National, that's the only difference.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to be thick Milt but....

Can you show me where National have not declared these donations?

No?

Apples and oranges.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, obviously not - I'd have a good story for the papes if I did have evidence of that. Can you show us where Labour's done it?

Anonymous said...

Shit, I really am thick.

Here was I thinking Peter Williams was WPs QC. A lawyer who thinks that parliamentary rules are rubbish.

So I thought I was talking about Winston First.

But no, apparently I've said that Labour have been hiding donations.

I'm too thick to see where I've said that but I must have cause Milt says so.

Confused? Me too.

Psycho Milt said...

Perhaps you are. The post is about Labour. I commented in response about Labour, comparing them with National. Given that you suggested my response was comparing apples with oranges, I presumed this referred to Labour vs National.

It would help no end of course, if my fellow bloggers would stop pretending Winston's donation troubles somehow involve the Labour Party - then we could all skip the confusion.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt you're dreaming. There's no pretending.

Anonymous said...

Well I don't really want to argue with you Milt, as I quite like Rovers, but......

...if you go and read the story linked to in the post it is 80% WP / 20% Labour.

Anyway, no big deal. :)