Roy makes hash of Breakfast-gate cover-up

29 comments on “Roy makes hash of Breakfast-gate cover-up ”

• Comments are now closed

1. peteremcc 1

   23 October 2009 at 12:24 pm

   Do you realise that in trying to make everything sound clandestine and murky, you just end up making yourself look stupid?

   Everyone else can clearly see what has happened, and your making it seem really confusing just makes you look silly.

   1) It wasn’t staff, it was activists. That’s been said multiple times in the media. Trying to claim it was staff because that makes the story sound worse, just makes it look like you haven’t properly read the news coverage.

   2) Of course the Prime Minister is responsible for upholding the cabinet manual. But do you really thing that when someone claims there is a breach, he goes and reads it himself to find out? Of course not. He would ask the cabinet office whether the manual had been breached, and if they said yes, or maybe, then he would act on it. Claiming that the cabinet office isn’t responsible makes it seem like you have no idea how government works. Either that, or your being deliberately misleading.

   3) Roy now says the surplus will be donated to charity, IF there is any. That’s right there in the news reports. Again, are you incompetent at following news? Or are you just deliberately ignoring facts?

   4) Donating funds to charity doesn’t prove that rules were being breached. In fact it’s already been proven that rules aren’t being breached. It does show that the media are mostly lefty hacks who have written more about two breakfasts than 13 years of the Green Party exploiting public funds to pay for their MPs retirements.

   However, don’t let any of the above dissuade you from continuing to write on the issue. The more you do, the more credibility you continue to lose.

   -Peter
   • snoozer 1.1

     23 October 2009 at 12:46 pm

     bit sensitive there Peter.

     What forums/fundraisers have you been organising? Were participants aware they were donating to ACT?
     • fraser 1.1.1

       23 October 2009 at 1:58 pm

       “it was activists”

       serious question here – do activists ever arrange meetings and organise the copy writing and printing of media for said meeting?

       Seems a lot of responsibility for the activist level within a party.
   • roger nome 1.2

     23 October 2009 at 12:54 pm

     Peter – don’t you get it? Ministers aren’t supposed to be using their position in Government to garner undue financial advantage for their party. Hide, and other Act ministers have been selling information that they’re privy to, as ministers, to rais funds for their party. It’s called corrupt behaviour.

     In attempting to make excuses for this corruption, you simply denigrate your own name in this forum. Is that really what you want to do?
     • burt 1.2.1

       23 October 2009 at 1:00 pm

       Lodge a complaint with the Police roger.

       If you can get a court case underway, either a civil case (if the Police decide they can’t charge him because they still haven’ty found their balls after they were removed for 9 years by Labour) or a criminal case (if the Police have found their balls) then set up a site where I can donate and I’ll donate the same amount as I did to Darnton VS Clark.

       If Rodney has broken the rules he must be held to account. End of story.
       • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1.1

         23 October 2009 at 1:02 pm

         have you lodged a complaint burt?
       • burt 1.2.1.2

         23 October 2009 at 1:07 pm

         Nope, but I’ll put cash (and possibly more than you would expect) behind anyone who gets a case to court. Will you do that or are you just all mouth about this?
       • burt 1.2.1.3

         23 October 2009 at 1:23 pm

         Actually PB, we had better ask John Key if Rodney has broken the rules or not, don’t want a fatally flawed politically motivated case being taken to court requiring National to drop all other business in parliament while they dispose of the case.

         rOb help me out – explain to PB why the govt have the power to decide when the govt have done something wrong and why it must be that way and how its no assault on democracy when they do this. I still think it is wrong and you won’t convince me the PM should have the power to adjudicate on alleged breach of the law by members of the govt but PB has nodded in agreement with you on issues like this in the past.
         • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1.3.1

           23 October 2009 at 1:39 pm

           What law do you think has been breached? Are you saying that if no law has been breached then that’s it, he is fine?
       • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1.4

         23 October 2009 at 1:37 pm

         Burt, as i explained last night, I’m not at all sure this is a matter for the police. So I think such a case would be frivolous and only give Hide a way out when the case gets thrown out.

         I think it is a matter of ethics, and such is decided by political, not legal means. So yes, it really is up to Key. Whatever decision he makes, he has to live with the political outcome. If the voters decide, (and it is their decision), that they are ok with it, then that is the ethics we have.

         That’s why I think your angle here, (attacking what you percieve as hypocrisy from commenters here) is counterproductive to your stated aims. Much as your support for the ‘principled’ Hide now looks foolish.

         Surely you should be applying whatever pressure you can on the defenders of Hide and Roy and ACT, rather than on your old opponnents?
         • Jim McDonald 1.2.1.4.1

           23 October 2009 at 2:35 pm

           Who wanna bet the PM will definitely say he continues to have confidence in his ACT ministers?

           What I luv about the PM is not just his smile but his slapstick Letterman comedic appearances, ‘laxed attitude and his wonderfully immense confidence he has in his ministers (Worthless type aside).

           A bottomless pit of confidence, one would say. Yee HAA!
   • snoozer 1.3

     23 October 2009 at 1:02 pm

     peter, the Cabinet Manual is not a rule book, it is a set of guidelines against which the PM should assess his ministers’ behaviour but it is not an exclusive list, which if you pass makes you fit to be a minister.

     The question for the PM is always: given the actions of my ministers, can I still have confidence in them to perform their duties adequately, legally, and ethically?

     That’s not a question he hands over the the Cabinet Office and it’s not one for which the answers are really found within the Cabinet Manual. And the answer in Hide and Roy’s cases must now be no.
2. burt 2

   23 October 2009 at 12:55 pm

   The first mistake ACT made was to declare a set price that was the same for everyone rather than have drop buckets where selected invitees could drop large volumes of cash under the banner of an anon koha donation.

   The second mistake was declaring it – a big “NO” sign would seem to be appropriate about now. That seems to make the PM defend them for anything they do and stall any investigations until closer to the election.
3. Bright Red 3

   23 October 2009 at 12:57 pm

   hash – breakfast, lolz!

   Is this Peter guy an ACTivist? He seems pretty worked up trying to defend the indefensible.

   It seems quite clear to me that Hide and Roy have blended two legitimate roles in a way that is completely illegitimate. It’s not good enough to blame the activists, if anything that raises a broader quetion of ACT party fundraising practices.

   captcha says ‘accidental’, I don’t buy it.
   • Pascal's bookie 3.1

     23 October 2009 at 1:05 pm

     “…raises a broader quetion of ACT party fundraising practices.”

     Sure does. Looks co-ordinated.
   • felix 3.2

     23 October 2009 at 1:12 pm

     Is this Peter guy an ACTivist?

     Yeah, he’s from ACT on Campus at Victoria Uni. He’s big on private property rights but he steals other people’s private property to make ACT on Campus promotional videos.
4. Jim McDonald 4

   23 October 2009 at 1:47 pm

   Fundtastic!

   Government ministers from this party whose ideology centres on individual self responsibility seem eager to leverage any advantage from office but tactically quick to outsource responsibility and blame members of their own party.
5. randal 5

   23 October 2009 at 2:25 pm

   these act people are supposed to be the innovators, the movers and the shakers, the right guys, the vibrators but every time they stick their heads up they are revealed as venal little money grubbers doing anything for a buck.
   who decided it was their TURN to be in government?
6. JD 6

   23 October 2009 at 10:02 pm

   “Ministers aren’t supposed to be using their position in Government to garner undue financial advantage for their party.”

   Does the name Owen Glenn bring back any memories?
7. graham 7

   23 October 2009 at 11:09 pm

   all parties do this sort of fundraising i bet if we go and look we will find examples in the last nine years will you then write up a blog attacking lets say steve chadwick for example
8. JD 8

   23 October 2009 at 11:24 pm

   “who decided it was their TURN to be in government?”

   The voters of Epsom. Randal you appear to be rather dull.
9. JD 9

   23 October 2009 at 11:26 pm

   “who decided it was their TURN to be in government?”

   The voters of Epsom. Randel you appear to be rather dull.
   • Bull in the heather 9.1

     23 October 2009 at 11:28 pm

     x
10. peteremcc 10

    24 October 2009 at 12:48 am

    From: patrick.leyland@gmail.com
    Subject: Women’s Sector Fundraising Breakfast Saturday 12th August 2008

    Dear all,

    Please find attached a PDF flyer for the Women’s Sector Fundraising Breakfast on Saturday morning, at 7am at St Andrews on-the-Terrace.

    The guest speaker is Hon Steve Chadwick, Minister of Women’s Affairs.

    Please Rachel Boyack (details below) know if you would like a ticket for this event, or purchase one at Congress on Friday. Look forward to seeing you there!

    I’d appreciate if you could forward this throughout your networks.

    Kind regards,

    Rachel Boyack
    Vice Chair | Harbour Branch
    Women’s Liaison Officer | Wellington Central LEC
    Labour Women’s Sector Councillor
    New Zealand Labour Party
    • r0b 10.1

      24 October 2009 at 1:51 am

      So you think that an email sent from Labour Party members to Labour Party members attending Conference to come to a clearly labelled fundraising breakfast is somehow equivalent to ACT MPs selling access to their portfolio expertise to members of the public and stakeholders?

      That’s the best you’ve got? You ACToids must be really spooked! And so you should be. You’ve been caught out planting a “For Sale” sign on government. You’ll sell anything not nailed down won’t you. Shame on you all…
    • burt 10.2

      24 October 2009 at 4:05 pm

      petermcc

      As Muldoon would have loudly told us, it’s different when we do it. rOb is in perfect pitch – you can’t compare these situations.
11. Clint Heine 11

    25 October 2009 at 7:20 am

    Naa, not spooked at all. This is the best you guys have got…shit it means we must be on the right track. Keep it up boys, this won’t go any further and I am willing to wager this will be the end of it 🙂
    • felix 11.1

      25 October 2009 at 11:15 am

      Yet you’re both here every day insisting that there’s nothing to see.

      You’re such a retard, Clint 🙂

Links to post

1. I’m Glad I’m not an ACTivist « Life and Politics: posted on 23 October 2009 at 4:30 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS