Nats’ smear machine steps up attack on Len Brown

77 comments on “Nats’ smear machine steps up attack on Len Brown ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   13 June 2010 at 3:12 pm

   If the overall approach and structure isn’t bad enough…..to give Banksie those huge powers sitting on top of Wodneyville is yet another scary thought.

   Does anyone remember this idiot doing anything positive and intelligent in his nat days as well as mayor for remuera…….this job requires a cohesive intelligent individual nor Mr Hasbeen or more likely Mr Nevereverwas.
   • toad 1.1

     13 June 2010 at 10:03 pm

     Luv the Farrar pic on the frontpage excerpt Eddie – looks much like Kim Jong Il, but with a lot less hair!
2. IrishBill 2

   13 June 2010 at 3:26 pm

   And again it’s Jonathon Marshall writing the story. Is he on the SST’s payroll or John Banks’?
3. wyndham 3

   13 June 2010 at 3:27 pm

   Yes, they show no mercy now that the “new” image of Banks isn’t working for them. On Q+A this a.m. Michelle Boag couldn’t resist having a dig at Len Brown although it was totally unnecessary to even bring his name into the discussion.
   We can expect more of the same as it becomes more and more apparent that the well-oiled right-wing machine is not going to deliver Auckland to them in order that it may be plundered.
4. mickysavage 4

   13 June 2010 at 3:30 pm

   This is going to be a really dirty campaign. Hopefully Len will continue with his normal ways and not reply in kind.

   I thought the same. They are asking for a replacement because they cannot find the original. What a beat up.

   Farrar ought to consider the law of defamation as should the SST. They are treading really close to the line.

   As for Michelle Boag she is the biggest waste of space the National party has. When was she last involved in a sinning campaign?
   • andy (the other one) 4.1

     13 June 2010 at 3:55 pm

     When was she last involved in a sinning campaign?

     Heh! all of em!

     Wow, Mike Williams body language when she dropped that was classic. He wasted an opportunity to remind her she was sacked for a conflict of interest in the Supercity. You can recruit the new execs and work for the Banks campaign.

     Stage 1. release through the blubbery one.
     Stage 2. Farrar, refreshes with a slightly more pragmatic tone refuting Whales’ intemperate tone.
     Stage 3. Lazy journo picks up and runs with it.

     Banksie lies about his height, send me a letter full of spin and BS and rips us all off over Monte Cecilia School at a massive cost to rate payers and the SST is pretty quiet. It was North Shore Mayor first, Manukau second, Bob Harvey look out.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651535

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10646146

     EDIT: Forgot Banks’ stinky Bee Pollen stuff and Hulich Kiwisaver activities with Brash and co.
     • mickysavage 4.1.1

       13 June 2010 at 4:16 pm

       Winning, I meant winning
       • lprent 4.1.1.1

         13 June 2010 at 4:20 pm

         Yeah, but the inadvertent slip is pretty damn funny.
   • the pinkpostman 4.2

     14 June 2010 at 3:17 pm

     Well for years I have been “raving on” about the Right’s dirty trick brigade.
     Who are they, Crosby/Textor, Democratic Pacific Union ( Chair Lord Michael Ashcroft and through that Union the USA Republican Party,
     That’s the worst other are involved. So of course they have money and knowledge .Nothing gets past them regarding members of the Left and what they do not get they make up. It’s a burden we must combat.The present charade over credit cards is a windfull for these snakes.
     As for Boag don’t pass her bye ,she’s a dangerous woman with lot’s of connections. Not ever to be trusted .she will not miss any chance to slag Labour. We must be prepaired for a very dirty campaign ,Local Body and the
   • the pinkpostman 4.3

     14 June 2010 at 4:01 pm

     Don’t underestimate Boag M/S she may look like mutton with mint sauce ,but under that painted face is a shrewd cunning woman. She has has a wide range of media /news outlets and she never misses a chance to slag Labour.
     She will use every dirty trick in the book ,if she has too for getting the vote for Banks. Then she will get the same theme going for the General Election.
     The other problem is that the Nats have a number of Boag simulars the problem being we do not know who they are . But I bet The Nats have a number of people in the spotlight who will start praising the Right.
     I’m picking that there may be a top Rugby player who will come out in favour of Banks and the Right coalition in the local elections. Let’s be aware and ready for this certain attack.
5. Graham 5

   13 June 2010 at 3:34 pm

   Um, gonna have to call you on selective quotes here.

   Yes, I totally agree that “to make up a bill” is commonly used to refer to writing a bill up and printing it out – not fabricating it. BUT, reading the SST article, I think the worrying bits come a little later.

   Council officials working for Manakau mayor Len Brown approached a restaurant asking its staff to “make up” a dinner receipt that excluded details of beer and wine purchased during a $810 dinner.

   The tax invoice is different from the usual invoices given to diners at the South Auckland eatery.

   The Star-Times has learned that council officials contacted the restaurant last week – 36 weeks after the visit – and asked them to produce a new receipt and fax it to council headquarters. Volare owner Daniel Nakhle yesterday confirmed “a new receipt was requested” just a few days ago.

   And just for the record, I don’t want John Banks in the job either, having just read the stuff he mailed out to me.
   • Michael Foxglove 5.1

     13 June 2010 at 3:44 pm

     Hmm… I think Graham’s point is worth making, but I completely get it why Eddie didn’t perpetuate an unproven fact.

     If you look carefully, there’s no source whatsoever to back up that claim. And it’s so ambiguous, you’ve got to wonder were they asking that beer and wine they purchased personally shouldn’t be included?
     • IrishBill 5.1.1

       13 June 2010 at 4:29 pm

       I wouldn’t trust a thing Marshall wrote anyway. He was the one that stalked Andy Williams and wrote a story about him being a drunk (complete with claims that were proven wrong), he was the one that got fired from Queer TV for stalking Mike Hosking (and then proceeded to stalk his kids), he is also the idiot who pulled the fake bomb at the rugby stunt. In short, he’s a joke and his stories are a joke too. The sooner somebody sues him into oblivion the better.
       • SHG 5.1.1.1

         13 June 2010 at 4:41 pm

         Ahahaha is this the same guy? Classic.
   • felix 5.2

     13 June 2010 at 3:47 pm

     He’s mailing stuff to you? Aren’t you in the South Island?
6. Anne 6

   13 June 2010 at 3:38 pm

   @ mickysavage
   Winebox scandal? Didn’t she arrange for a private camera crew to film Winston Peters in court giving evidence to the Royal Commission of Inquiry? She was working for Fay Richwhite and co. at the time.
   • Pascal's bookie 6.1

     13 June 2010 at 4:01 pm

     Yes, she did.
   • mickysavage 6.2

     13 June 2010 at 4:31 pm

     Yep, same one.

     She also masterminded the 2002 campaign which saw National crash to their worst ever election defeat.

     She is on Jim Mora’s show in the afternoon occasionally. Every time I hear her talk I have this urge to shove sharpened pencils into my ear drums.
7. marsman 7

   13 June 2010 at 3:41 pm

   Maybe they’ve got Crosby Textor on the case, Smear is their forte. They did it for Boris in the last London mayoral election.
8. Barnsley Bill 8

   13 June 2010 at 3:42 pm

   Sadly, the blame it on the nat blogger meme will not work this time Eddie.
   Firstly, the staff member who asked the restaurant to create a new non-itemised account.. Who was it? Who pays their wages? Are they a council employee, campaign staff or (as I sincerely hope) Both at the same time.
   Do they work for the TelstraClear events centre?
   The restaurant has broken the law and IRD WILL be getting involved over this invoice, Brown has had somebody try and deceive the reporter and despite the gilbert and sullivan theatrics of cutting up the credit card this scandal will not go away.
   Might be time to put Bob Harvey through the fleetwash methinks.. Or the Tiz? Bwahahaha.

   I fully expect this one to be deleted.. The hard questions are a bit dificult to stomach on a sunday aren’t they?
   
   [lprent: Why exactly would we delete it?

   Admittedly your comment sounds rather confused and lacks a lot of coherency (like much of your writing). It makes little sense except in terms of unsubstantiated innuendo (like most of your writing). I suspect that your idea of the legal aspects is as usual based more on hope than reality – but that isn’t unusual either.

   In short your comment makes you look like a bit of a numbnuts fool – but hey we knew that anyway. That isn’t an offense that we zap comments or ban for. These are usually left to the commentators to comment on (if they can be bothered).

   You know all of this, so I guess you tacked that last para in as some kind of pathetic attention seeking. That really isn’t a good look if you want to be taken seriously. ]
   • Marty G 8.1

     13 June 2010 at 3:52 pm

     grow up. we don’t delete substantive comments.

     but keep on smearing
     • lprent 8.1.1

       13 June 2010 at 4:21 pm

       Looks like a ditto on that last para. But you’re a bit nicer than I am… 😈
9. axeman 9

   13 June 2010 at 3:56 pm

   Aah the old ‘Crosby Textor Conspiracy Theory’. Just like the myth perpetuated on Red Alert. Must be puttin’ your tinfoil hats on too tightly over here as well.
10. Buster 10

    13 June 2010 at 4:19 pm

    How come no journalist has asked John Banks to repay the $8,000 it cost to expand the Auckland City Council carpark to fit his Bentley in? That sounds like more of an extravagant personal expense than anything Brown has done:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=227999

    And how come Banks hasn’t been forced to ask if he’s been reimbursed for anything during his time as mayor or how much all his receptions and activities have cost?

    It seems the only thing that is manufactured here is the outrage by one attack journalist and his repeater blogger allies.
    • mickysavage 10.1

      13 June 2010 at 4:36 pm

      How come no journalist has asked John Banks to repay the $8,000 it cost to expand the Auckland City Council carpark to fit his Bentley in?

      Because they expect the left’s standards to be so much higher …

      I think all mayors should have $5k to spend on anything without question just so that we can get away from this endless gazing at visa statements.

      And talk about real issues like public transport, the need to retain water in public ownership and control and maintain older adult housing, you know important stuff like that.

      The right wing do not debate these issues because they don’t believe in them but they know that their views are really unpopular. It is much better to push the sleaze button.
      • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1.1

        13 June 2010 at 5:11 pm

        What about the $700,000 Auckland City spent on the bugled attempt to to get the V8 Super Cars running around the inner city – at Banks insistence.
        A complete fiasco, as they never did the detailed work .
    • Tigger 10.2

      13 June 2010 at 9:37 pm

      There are a lot of questions that should be put to Mr Banks that no one will.

      And the problem with smearing is that you tend to get some pooh on you…Banks has been around a long time and has buried a bunch of bodies. Sooner or later someone’s gonna start digging…
11. Bob Stanforth 11

    13 June 2010 at 4:33 pm

    It is possible, as has been noted, that this is an attempted ‘smear’. If it is, it will be undone by Mr Brown coming forth with the relevant documentation – a tax deductible, itemised receipt. It does seem a tad strange that it is being asked for now, many months after the fact – maybe a review highlighted a missing receipt, who knows, but again, production of an original will make the issues go away. Will it not? Or is that too simplistic a view?

    Surely claiming its all a smear even before it has been refuted is premature? Why not let the truth out first, then highlight that self same truth, rather than claiming smear right from the outset? Isn’t it good we have this type of public accountability for those who hold public office? I for one would like to know that someone spending $800 of public funds had been doing it for a relevant, public oriented purpose, rather than for his or her own reasons.

    [lprent: I haven’t bothered to look at this topic at all as it looks to me more like a group masturbation by the wingnut right (the porn festival from the likes of Farrar and the other dog whistling spinsters of the right).

    However since I have to release you from first-time moderation, I’ll comment that you appear to have a bit of a logic problem in your comment. If the reason for requesting a new receipt is to replace a missing one – then how in the hell could he produce the original? Can you see how stupid your comment looks? Or are you too much of a stupid troll to move past the moronic line you are spouting?

    It is a characteristic signature of a political smear that 1+1 = 11. This is the Whaleoil (or Barnsley Bill) level of political mathematics. Your comment appears to encapsulate quite successfully. In essence you appear to be saying that because there hasn’t been a refutation (on a Sunday when most media and for that matter the relevant accounts are not available) that the presumption has to be that there is malfeasance.

    I hope that any comments you write in the future aren’t going to be as boneheaded as this one. Because you’ll certainly fall foul of the policy – which I suggest you read immediately.

    This all wastes my time, which is why I’ve spent time now to set you on a path that is less of the sewer, and more on the higher debate level you’ll need here. Hopefully an investment of my time now will make you someone I don’t have to exert moderation effort on later. ]
    • Bob Stanforth 11.1

      13 June 2010 at 6:39 pm

      Gee, nice welcome, thanks 🙂

      Put it this way – if a business sells something, they have to keep a record of that sale. Its the law. They have to note what was sold, to whom, and when. Details. So that if the tax man comes knocking, they can supply that level of detail. They also, in the retail trade, tend to keep details because it matters from a stock perspective. A business produces THEIR original as a copy, to back up that produced at the time of sale – hence, the original.

      I did not say that because there is no refutation its true, I said the claim will be undone when such refutation takes place. Surely that’s obvious? Isn’t what Im stating giving Mr Brown the time to put it right? How is it stupid to ask for someone to be able to show themselves to be right, not wrong, and then to be able to stand on that right?

      You seem to think that because I dont blindly support the claim that its a smear that Im for it, or approve of it? That is so far from the truth to be laughable. My point is, I think, quite simple – its not true until proven, and we all have the right to so prove – no matter what someone claims. And if someone claims ‘rort’ when the opposite is in fact true, then their argument is lost, as is some degree of their credibility? And then the person so claimed against has their reputation not only supported, but also strengthened. Yes? Oh, and please refrain from another attack, Im not stupid. You might be able to see that, I hope. Oh, and I read policy – could do with a spell check 🙂
      • lprent 11.1.1

        13 June 2010 at 11:07 pm

        I’ve run a few accounting systems in my time. It always freaks me out how easy it is for paper to go astray. Especially when the bill doesn’t go directly to the accounting office (in my case sales reps, in this case (presumably) politicians at a meal). It gets stuffed in someones pocket and usually winds up going through the wash.

        One of the reasons to use a credit card is because the value still shows up on the credit card, which does go directly to the accounting office. So you can request request a copy of a receipt from the company listed on the credit card statement.

        Seems a hell of a lot simpler than the convoluted conspiracy theories I’ve scanned in comments today. But probably not as entertaining.

        You get used to having me around providing the outside bounds of behaviour. I generally prefer not to get involved in comments.

        But I figure that if I have to intervene, then I prefer to ensure that people don’t want a repetition of my treatment. This saves me time later (and who really cares about the lusers).

        I set the moderation policy to always show me peoples first messages. It limits people who like changing identities frequently because I look to see if they’re already banned through their IPs. It also allows me to preemptively comment on first time users who look like they may incur my immoderate wrath later during moderation sweeps. On average the latter reduces my workload in running the site.
        • Bob Stanforth 11.1.1.1

          14 June 2010 at 8:13 am

          You aren’t my ex wife are you? 🙂 She used the preemptive strike philosophy as well, had more headaches than a clutch of Labour ministers and their credit card expenses 🙂 Ditched her for the childhood sweetheart, best move ever.

          I digress.

          Paper does go missing, of that there is no doubt. Im an accountant, been involved with selecting and implementing financial systems for years, large corporates here and o/seas, and keeping those bits of paper is a nightmare, but it needs to be done. Still strikes me as odd that a long long time after the expense was incurred there was a need to go find a detailed receipt, but then it might have been in response to an OIA request. We shall have to wait and see – and reserve judgment, of course.

          I think whats been forgotten is that its not about the fact that there are bigger issues for our politicians to deal with, there are. This goes to the very heart of trust. We believe that our elected representatives are capable of doing the job we elected them for, that for most of us (I think) is a no brainer. What we have to be (re) assured of is our trust in them to act both within the law / rules, and also with honour. The latter seems lacking – on both sides – at the moment, and historically. The former also seems to have been waived by some as well.

          Putting it succinctly, some, not all, have been taking the piss. Its our money, there are rules, and they are there to protect our money. You don’t get the right to feather your nest just because you are our representative.
    • infused 11.2

      13 June 2010 at 9:14 pm

      So touchy lpent. You obviously have no idea how it works, keep reciepts.
      • lprent 11.2.1

        13 June 2010 at 11:09 pm

        Yeah right. Even have to manage sales reps or programmers or engineers? Not exactly the worlds greatest keepers of annoying bits of paper.

        I suspect you’re thinking of some ideal world where everyone is an obsessional wingnut with a paper fetish. Ummm called “accountants” from memory.
12. theseeker 12

    13 June 2010 at 4:42 pm

    i am not surprised its what tories always resort to when losing
13. tsmithfield 13

    13 June 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Sure the right is probably milking this for all its worth, as the left would in similar circumstances.

    I think a fair point here is that Len Brown (and possibly his officials by latest revelations) have opened the door for these sort of attacks in the first place. So they have created the opportunity for the right to gain some advantage here.
    • Pascal's bookie 13.1

      13 June 2010 at 4:56 pm

      ” So they have created the opportunity for the right to gain some advantage here.”

      True, and it’s a shame, coz the right are hardly going to campaign on policy. They could do like the national Nats did… “Those policies you know we favour? We sincerely promise not to implement them immediately”, but nah, even that’s too honest for the banksta. It’s just gonna be wall to wall nickel and dimeing with near daily diversions from any thing policy related.
14. really 14

    13 June 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Smear or not you must admit it is very very very dodgy for a staffer to ask for a new receipt with all references to booze removed, and 36 months later (so its hardly ooops we lost it and need it for the financial years audit).
15. Barnsley Bill 15

    13 June 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Micky Savage, your call to give them 5k to spend on anything they like is a good one. Oh, hang on a minute. I think they get substantially more than that already. I think it is called their salaries..
    Pretty good ones too. It stuns me that the ex labour ministers, current nat ministers, rodney and the the north shore and manukau mayors can’t manage to get by on what they are legally paid without having to treat tax payers and ratepayers as interest free credit unions.

    The money quote this weekend for me was this one from the herald about the scandal.

    “Most gallingly, he used his ministerial card to buy flowers for Lianne Dalziel after she was sacked as Immigration Minister for lying about having leaked documents to a television channel.
    The logic by which he could regard it as a ministerial duty to console a colleague who had sought to deceive the public remains obscure to everybody but him, it appears.”

    Obviously it is about the member for Te Atatu.
    No doubt somebody will chirp up blaming a staffer or him not having his personal card in his wallet..
    • felix 15.1

      13 June 2010 at 5:30 pm

      I tend to agree about the salaries, BB. Who buys flowers to comfort a friend and doesn’t want to pay for it? What a frickin tightwad.

      I’m sure someone will say they’re not paid that much compared to similar positions in the private sector, but this is a spurious comparison. The nature of the job entails public service. If you’re not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good then you don’t belong in parliament, sorry.

      (Besides which there really are no comparable jobs in the private sector – they’re not managers and the country isn’t a business).
    • ghostwhowalksnz 15.2

      13 June 2010 at 5:44 pm

      Well Key got around the housing allowance which English tried to rort, which was ruled illegal by the A-G, by changing the rules and ‘giving’ all his ministers a maximum no questions asked housing allowance

      The gall
16. Barnsley Bill 16

    13 June 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Felix, surprisingly we have not heard the low pay argument this time. That is probably because they are all paid mulitples of the average wage and low pay does not wash as an excuse for helping yourself. You could also look at each one on a case by case basus and see what thye were doing and actually earning prior to winning the golden kiwi card to free food and booze and christs knows what else.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 16.1

      13 June 2010 at 5:48 pm

      Oh come on Heatley showed your lot were no different. Yet he was not seen as a grasper.

      McCully has spent $2000 on dry cleaning , which is a personal expense, as the clothes are his.
      Whats the difference from the flowers to dry cleaned suits and shirts
      • Graeme Edgeler 16.1.1

        13 June 2010 at 5:54 pm

        Dry-cleaning when travelling on official business is used as a specific example of permitted expenditure in the governing document “Travel, Accommodation, Attendance, and Communication Services Available to Members of the Executive”.

        Of course, so too are flowers 🙂
        • ghostwhowalksnz 16.1.1.1

          13 June 2010 at 6:30 pm

          When travelling you would normally use the hotel laundry service, so it would be added to the bill – like the porn.
          Is there evidence that all McCullys dry cleaning bills were ‘overseas’ and not Wellington as well ?
17. Adolf Fiinkensein 17

    13 June 2010 at 5:53 pm

    National smear machine? Are you off your heads?

    National have needed to do not a thing. Your idiots have done it all on their own.
    • Michael Foxglove 17.1

      13 June 2010 at 7:00 pm

      But they have done “a thing”. They’re smearing Len Brown before the facts are known.

      And we don’t have any “idiots”. Do you?
18. Rharn 18

    13 June 2010 at 5:54 pm

    I’m surprised that the Nats have not done an ‘ecan.’ That is suspend democracy and appoint a commissioned mayor. But hey…………….it’s early days………….and given Key’s and Hide’s democratic agenda for the Supercity…………….it’s still possible.
19. really 19

    13 June 2010 at 6:07 pm

    PhilU …………period………….abuse…………. alert.
    • felix 19.1

      13 June 2010 at 7:01 pm

      Nah, it’s a completely different syntax.
    • RedLogix 19.2

      13 June 2010 at 7:09 pm

      Hey…I’m the serial period abuser round here….sod…off.
20. Rosy 20

    13 June 2010 at 6:36 pm

    If left-wing politicians are happy with calling right-wingers ‘rich pricks’ they are on some level associating themselves with ‘hard working kiwis’. If right-wingers rort the system it is hardly unexpected that they might spend up without a thought to what that means for people with lower living standards. If a left-wing politician does the same it tends to come as a complete surprise to those who believed in them, and seems entirely hypocritical – in a similar way to the ‘family values’ person being associated with sexual impropriety. A ‘rich prick’ who spends other people’s money cannot, on the same level, be accused of being a hypocrite. I suspect this is at the heart of the outrage over spending.We can defend all we like, be angry over the double standards, and rail against the headlines without explanation or detail, but Labour has to acknowledge this, and handle it well, no matter how unfair. (Just summarising what floating voters I know are saying)
    • felix 20.1

      13 June 2010 at 7:03 pm

      Well that fails at the first “if”.

      Cullen called Key a rich prick. Presumably because he knew Key to be rich and also believed him to be a prick.

      The rest is fantasy.
    • mickysavage 20.2

      13 June 2010 at 8:19 pm

      My exposure to swinging voters leads me to believe they are not concerned with any of the points you made, what ever they are, all they know is that things are not good and Jones watched porn paid for by his Ministerial card and maybe there is a link.

      Stunning politics, but totally unrelated to reality.
21. RedLogix 21

    13 June 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Shorter Rosy…I’d sooner vote for a rich prick who I can pretend isn’t massively screwing me over…than a fellow poor prick who’s a little prone to getting ideas above his station.

    Finish off with a round of vigorous forelock tugging woncha all.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 21.1

      13 June 2010 at 7:23 pm

      A rich prick – like Richard Worth ? Your metaphors about whos was screwing who are more apt than you think
22. Rosy 22

    13 June 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Redlogix , I agree entirely with your link, but you got it in one, – your post is how a lot of people I talk to think – and they all vote! Some were slowly coming round especially after the budget, but these spending headlines really are a step back in the world I live in.
    • RedLogix 22.1

      13 June 2010 at 8:53 pm

      Sadly there’s something in what you’re saying Rosy. Call the politics of envy if you will, but not quite in the way most people mean it.
23. Anne 23

    13 June 2010 at 8:42 pm

    In the short term you might be right Rosy and if so, we can look forward to seeing it show up in the next opinion poll. But come the next election – whenever it turns out to be- the swinging voters won’t be casting their vote based on blue movies and booze. It’ll be a darn sight more fundamental than that. Like… how their pocket is being affected, and who they think will give them the best monetary deal.

    By the way, someone – think it might have been Mike Williams on Q&A – said the story is far from over. There’s more revelations to come, and at least one involves another Nact minister.
24. mickysavage 24

    13 June 2010 at 9:48 pm

    That is it. I am now convinced. Len Brown should not be Mayor of the Super City because the Manukau City Council misplaced a bit of paper.

    It was a relatively insignificant bit of paper. Someone looked at it before and thought it was OK and reimbursed Len for a Dinner which may have been a dinner for Councillors and senior Officers.

    But hell that bit of paper is missing.

    There is also a Criminal Conspiracy because a Council Officer tried to replace the bit of paper with another bit of paper.

    Franz Kafka eat your heart out …
25. Nick C 25

    13 June 2010 at 10:08 pm

    “When Keys hand picked candidate John Banks.”

    Since when did John Key pick Banks? He was obviously going to run already being the mayor of the Auckland city council.

    Its ironic that you deride smears when you give away that this blog is nothing more than a smear blog with these lame attacks laced in your posts.
26. Cactus Kate 26

    13 June 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Irrelevant if the MCC don’t have the details.

    The restaurant has to keep records for 7 years, they will have a copy of the original (first made) receipt with itemised detail on it. As per standard when you go out, you pay and they give you the original usually and keep the carbon or computer printed copy. May take a while but it will be sitting with their accounts staff/accountant. Simple to ask for that if there are issues.

    Would be more interesting to find out who goes out on a Sunday night for $810 and for what purpose. Has Brown explained that yet?
    • Marty G 26.1

      13 June 2010 at 11:36 pm

      next you’ll be wanting to Tim Groser and Murray McCully to explain why they needed hundreds of dollars worth of minibar alcohol.

      Who gets pissed alone every night? Present company excepted.
    • Carol 26.2

      14 June 2010 at 7:40 am

      Yes, Brown’s rebutal is here:

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651730

      Last night, Mr Brown told the Herald that the dinner was “most definitely” council business, a fundraiser attended by council staff and community members.

      And he says the council wanted a copy of the GST number on the receipt. It wasn’t on the original one.
      • smokie 26.2.1

        14 June 2010 at 9:19 am

        And it looks like Farrar has backed down. Do you reckon he’ll apologise?

        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/more_on_manukau.html
      • sweetd 26.2.2

        14 June 2010 at 7:46 pm

        Who was the fund raiser for?
        • Carol 26.2.2.1

          14 June 2010 at 8:05 pm

          http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/len-brown-says-victim-smear-campaign-3585967

          Brown says the meal was a fundraiser in support of a young singing artist from the Manukau community and was a completely appropriate occasion.
          • sweetd 26.2.2.1.1

            15 June 2010 at 7:55 am

            Yes, but who. Can he not name the person? You’d think it shouldn’t be too hard.
27. Herodotus 27

    14 June 2010 at 8:19 pm

    Does anyone really think that this wee attack will prevent Len from becomming mayor?
    For me only if Manukau does not vote would Len lose, the greater the vote count the greater will be Lens victory.
    If anything has been learnt over the last week, If you are in politics Do Not use the credit card supplied, use your own and get costs reimbursed signed off by a senior neutral civil servant. I am sure regarding National politics that under secretaries (I think this is the person) will pick up the bill and then the costs will work there way thru the system, also that ministerial credit cards will be cut up permanentely.
    • RedLogix 27.1

      14 June 2010 at 8:45 pm

      If you are in politics Do Not use the credit card supplied,

      Which kind of tells you something. Like what sane person would go anywhere near politics?

      also that ministerial credit cards will be cut up permanentely.

      Melting down the weapon they have just used on their opponent will turn out to be a temporary expedient. The credit cards were never the issue, no-one really cared about the relatively piffling sums involved…it was all a debased political pantomine to serve another purpose.

      And that’s a plot that can only thicken.
      • Herodotus 27.1.1

        14 June 2010 at 9:03 pm

        So as both side make personnel attacks on the opposition and digs deep into peoples pasts, how do we then get quality people on both sides of the spectrum to stand. There was only 1 person in history who had a unblemished past, and I think even he would not want a job as a MP so who has the credintals to stand. S.Jones will never live down what has just been revealed, but if he walks what will follow to replace him?
        We now have posts attacking the lovely man bill English for complying with the rules then commenting on the morality of his actions. As we are ever becomming a legialistic country (moving closer to USA,unfortunately) what standards do we wish our politicians and the rest of us to follow. A moral code or the law ? and what form of cardboard cutout will parliament be filled with?
        They will definitely not be representive of the community.
28. James 28

    15 June 2010 at 10:46 am

    Brown behaves like a typical socialist with other peoples money and the comrades can’t spin fast enough…..good times! 😉
29. randal 29

    16 June 2010 at 11:38 am

    who heard quax whining on the radio this morning.
    I dont care how much coffeee Len Brown Chraged up he will always be twice the man that john banks or quax will ever be.
30. really 30

    17 June 2010 at 8:00 am

    Lens advisers deserve to be shot

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3819839/Manukau-fundraiser-was-for-Aussie-singer
31. coge 31

    17 June 2010 at 12:30 pm

    I guess when it comes to the ballot box, it’ll come down to one thing. Who would you trust with the cheque book? Len Brown or John Banks? John Banks may not be to everyones taste, but we do know he is honest. At the end of the day serious doubts have been cast on Len Brown’s fiscal prudence, & this will be a concern to every Auckland rate payer.
    • Lew 31.1

      17 June 2010 at 12:35 pm

      Depends what the A-G finds, doesn’t it? After all, if he’s exonerated by the investigation that he invited, doesn’t he come out smelling of roses?

      Of course, he might not. But then, he knows what the investigation will find, and he called it.

      L
    • the pinkpostman 31.2

      17 June 2010 at 3:34 pm

      Who said he’s honest? I doubt if all the money he has was made honestly.
      He was either fiddling, insider trading or screwing the workers ,I will never ever believe a person can make double million figures by the sweat of their brow or by exercising their brain.
32. jaymam 32

    17 June 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Well I’m really unimpressed by what politicians put on credit cards. Enough to give up supporting them. However since the right wing does it too and rorts in many other ways, I suppose I should choose the lessor of two evils. Maybe not. I shall chose between the greater of two goods. And that sure aint John Banks.
    I was all ready to spend my usual months putting up billboards, repairing the vandalism, taking them down again and denailing and storing them for years.
    I’m coming around to doing that again. Or I could just watch TV or something.
    Note to our elected representatives: – please do better.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS