Where did the money go?

And so waht if he uses anonimoue donations to pay his legal bills? This is SOOO not the same as National receiving anon donations, no sirree. How do I know? Cos Winston told me so at the party conference on the weekend, and he's such a nice man.

GAG.

I am appalled at the way Winston Peters is carrying on at a time when he and his family are grieving his mother's recent passing.

In a word it's disgusting. Surely trivialities over whether money was deposited into NZ First's bank account or not is not a serious issue the government should be dealing with. (After all NZFirst & Winston are one and the same, so stop picking on trivialirites like this, it???s all spent on keeping him in power/in the manner to what he has become accustomed so who cares which account it goes into.)

There are profoundly more important things in life that should be addressed by this gummint, like rusty train sets, micro-chipping of dogs, banning a proven method ofchild discipline, brainwashing our children on AGW/MMGW/Climate change, chippies n pies, breastfeeding on the factory floor, driving round in BMWs, impoverishing our elderley via inflation and collapsing healthcare, gaining eminence on the world stage and at the United Nations, etc.

The New Zealand Herald NZ First vows to get to bottom of allegations 11:12AM Wednesday July 23, 2008 Quote: Former treasurer Kay Urlich told National Radio that she would not reveal who had donated money to the party or how much.

"When I was a treasurer in the National Party in the late eighties and early nineties, I was told never to disclose where the money comes from, never to disclose how much and you never tell a Member of Parliament. Now, I learned my lessons really well," Ms Urlich said.

"I never talked about money to the party members at all. I never told Winston Peters things like that at all. I never wanted to put him in a compromising position," Ms Urlich said. End Quote

Note how Ms Urlich learned her lessons in the National Party, the maestros of secret trusts, anonymous donations and third party funding. Let's not forget, the Exclusive Brethren scandal was only "yesterday", and was the reason for the law reform. Mr Key has tried to distance himself, but the disclosures have him implicated.

A meteoric rise to leader, escaping a lot of "baggage" which could be brought along if he were experienced, is ever so helpful?

He is now more easily able to pontificate about the "transparency" that he will expect in a Key National Party and give that nice, fresh image of a clean slate.

But "yesterday's" men are still around.

Exposed, the people asked the man who would be King,

"What is that we see?"

"Nothing" he replied

"Exactly", we said.

I could not agree more, why don't the media start putting the acid on some of the other politician's to come up with some polocies that will REALLY benefit the everday Kiwi.

What on earth is Crosby/Textor teaching John Key about being a politician?

In the days of the failed Don Brash National Party (the National Party is a different animal after each not infrequent leadership change - there is nothing consistent about its philosophy as it makes every desperate move to at least gain the Treasury benches) there was this harping that the Prime Minister "treat everyone the same".

John Key is complaining, "it appears she is treating Mr Peters differently to other members of her executive" Well, for goodness sake? One of the first things you would learn in any management/salesmanship course is, "that you do not treat everyone the same". People like to be treated as individuals and it is to basicly recognise them to do so.

It is akin to the electorate despatching Helen Clark or John Key in the same manner. One is a relative newcomer to politics and comparatively inexperienced, spending a lot of his working life abroad in speculative financial roles; and the other has been an MP for 27 years, much of it either as Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister - so far, a working lifetime within New Zealand.

Mr Peters would always expect his experience, broader political influence and individuality as a politician to be recognised. The Prime Minister will do that, but Mr Key would need to beg Mr Peter's pardon in order to do so.

This harping on about "treating people the same" is more of this puerile/naive conduct carried on by the Brash National Party - reminiscent of all that Corngate, Speedgate, Paintergate nonsense we of which we do not ever hear the end.

Because any single DONATION of $10,000 or more would require it to be declared shows that this political party is trying to hide this donation (or other similar donations, if any) from the public. How can the public trust this party?

That explains why we have a totally unnecesary Minister of Horse Racing. If the indoor bowlers can muster a $150,000 to donate to NZ First, will we get a Minister of Indoor Bowling. Wait for the announcement of the NZ Honours. Don't be surprised if some horsey people are next included. Or have we already had them? Buying honours with anonymous political donations; what next? No wonder Glen was peeved that the public found out first about the proposed honorary consulate. We have probably only seen the tip of the iceberg yet. Political bribery is NZ's only growing business.

Carla - Are you suggesting that political parties should have a she'll be right attitude to their finances and financial trails?

These people are elected by us to make sure that our hard earned taxes are used in the most efficient way possible - such as better care for our elderly as you suggest. If they are sloppy - then you can expect sloppy elderly care and sloppy race tracks.

I find it amazing that John Key and Rodney Hide can stand up and lecture on electoral finance law. The system of taking a series of donations under $10,000 from the same person and distributing them through a trust or lawyer is a trademark of National and ACT.