David Cunliffe’s home

Written By: - Date published: 2:56 pm, February 20th, 2014 - 227 comments
Categories: brand key, class war, david cunliffe, election 2014, greens, john key, labour, Media, Metiria Turei, national, poverty, same old national - Tags:

I have been rather bemused by all this fuss about David Cunliffe’s home.  It is no secret that he and I know each other and I have been to said house.  It’s a nice house in a nice street, but it’s no mansion.  It’s the kind of place you’d expect a professional couple who have done well in life to live in.  And David has enjoyed success before entering Parliament and his wife is a very talented and highly regarded lawyer.

As David said on Firstline this morning, he has never been ashamed of where he lives, or tried to hide it.  Like John Key, he’s come from a modest background but has been successful.  But unlike John Key, I know David is genuinely in politics because he wants others to have the same opportunities he did.

His original comment about Key getting out amongst the leafy streets of Parnell was made after Key had said about the author of the Salvation Army State of the Nation report needed to get out more.  An off the cuff remark has been seized upon and given significance it does not deserve.

Being a progressive politician does not require you to don sack cloth and forsake all of your worldly possessions.  It does require you to advocate for policies that will address social and environmental issues such as poverty and climate change.  Labour does not believe that wealth is inherently wrong, it believes that everyone should have a shot at the best lifestyle possible and there should at the same time be a minimum adequate quality of life for everyone.  National does not, and Key’s hypocrisy in taking advantage of the welfare state and then dismantling it is disgraceful.

Without a shred of embarrassment the National Party are now scouring David’s and his wife’s records to try and make some kind of point about their wealth.  Matthew Hooton for instance is tweeting asking for evidence that Cunliffe has interests in two or more properties on Marine Parade.  I know this to be absolute nonsense. They only own the one place and have no other property holdings whatsoever. The way the Right are dragging David’s family into this shows just how desperate they are.

I would advise my fellow lefties not to follow the Nats down this rabbit-hole. I was particularly disappointed to see a fuss being made by some on the left over Tova O’Brien’s interview of David in front of Fitzroy Yachts in New Plymouth. The reality is David was there doing a stand up about 120 New Zealanders who have just lost their jobs.  It’s a pity there hasn’t been so much outrage about that.

Addendum:  For the benefit of the National Party Research Unit when I say “own” I mean “have a beneficial interest in”.  Lawyers often act as independent trustees for trusts that they have no beneficial interest in.

227 comments on “David Cunliffe’s home ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 1
    20 February 2014 at 3:13 pm

    They only own the one place

    Do they own the Herne Bay property or has it been placed in a Trust to minimise tax?

    • mickysavage 1.1
      20 February 2014 at 3:22 pm

      Good try SHG. Part of my work involves trusts. People set up trusts for all sorts of reasons including asset protection and there are usually no tax implications whatsoever when this is done. Once John Key discloses his financial position I am sure that we can all have a good debate about this.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 3:35 pm

        lol Mickey Savage

        And we all know that there is a greater chance for a snowflake not melting in Hell than there is of John Key honestly disclosing his real financial position for all New Zealanders to assess.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 3:52 pm

          Don’t forget it’s a dinnimic environment. Honest answers change according to the conditions, and the real financial position is a moveable feast of trusts and leverage.

      • David H 1.1.2
        21 February 2014 at 10:43 am

        @Mickysavage And somehow Key’s Real address got overlooked in all of this, and it’s Hawaii not NZ, that Key calls home.

    • Anne 1.2
      20 February 2014 at 4:11 pm

      mickeysavage :

      Like Chris Trotter, I see some uncanny similarities between the political scene around the mid-to late 1970s and what is happening today. The times are different so the “skulduggery” is going to take a different form, but the end result is the same – a well planned and executed campaign of smears and innuendo designed to bring down individual political opponents and sometimes using illegally gathered material. This is what John Key’s “top drawer” was set up for in the first place.

      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/17/something-similar-political-skulduggery-was-rife-in-1975-why-not-in-2014/

      It is no coincidence that the former occurred under the leadership of Rob Muldoon and the present under John Key – two morally bankrupt leaders who sunk/will sink to whatever depths of political depravity necessary to maintain their hold on power.

      I have knowledge of… and some very unpleasant experiences that had their origins in the 1970s campaign, and can pretty much confirm that the Colin Moyle “sting” did indeed have a strong under-cover cop component to it. It is something I have known for years but there has never been anybody I knew who I felt able to trust with the full information. I believe I can identify two of the people who were probably involved in that affair and certainly in other nefarious political activities.

      I don’t know what the opposition parties can do about it, but they need to collaborate and take a strong strategic stand against the campaign otherwise they will be out-gunned in the same way Labour was in the 1970s.

      • mickysavage 1.2.1
        20 February 2014 at 8:31 pm

        Agreed Anne.

        I have tried to write a post on what I think is happening but there is that much going on and it is so intertwined that it is difficult to explain simply. But we are seeing some very accomplished back room people pulling various strings.

        It would help if we could just avoid the personal stuff and concentrate on policy and vision. But National is weak in those areas so it will always try to divert attention.

        • Anne 1.2.1.1
          21 February 2014 at 9:43 am

          @ mickysavage

          The problem with these situations, it can take years to unravel the ‘mysteries’ because they are so convoluted in practice that it isn’t until someone starts becoming careless with their talk (as happened in my case), and together with bits and pieces of info. entering the public arena, the jigsaw comes together. By that time nobody cares any more and the perpetrators get clean away with it.

        • David H 1.2.1.2
          21 February 2014 at 10:48 am

          Not only that micky I still wonder what the real reason muldoon scuppered the Labour super scheme. That would have made us a very rich country. But the powers that be couldn’t have that, because what use would we have had for them in the end.

          • Anne 1.2.1.2.1
            21 February 2014 at 11:54 am

            I still wonder what the real reason muldoon scuppered the Labour super scheme.

            Muldoon promised a super scheme that would amount to 80% of the average wage from
            60yrs regardless of income. It was a massive election bribe, and the greedy grabbers out there (the majority I’m afraid) were in like woolly dogs. A massive landslide for the Nats in 1975 and within 9 years we were on the verge of becoming an ‘officially’ bankrupted country.

            Key is on record as saying Muldoon was the PM he admired the most, so don’t be surprised if he doesn’t copy him later this year with another massive short-term bribe!

            • David H 1.2.1.2.1.1
              21 February 2014 at 1:58 pm

              Yeah and another 3 years of Key and we’ll be well on the same track as 1975

            • Monty 1.2.1.2.1.2
              21 February 2014 at 3:03 pm

              What crap. There is no evidence that National will engage in the pork barrel politics and massive increases in welfare that you suggest (Yes I know that your reaction will be to repeat Warner Brothers, and Rio Tinto – but that was actually about creating jobs and opportunities for NZ) Welfare in the form that Muldoon offered was a bribe.

              The sad think now is that it is Labour who seem unable to think more laterally than welfare bribes to win votes. Envy and punishment of the middle classes to pay for the vote of the core labour constituent.

              • Anne …
                21 February 2014 at 3:12 pm

                There is no evidence that National will engage in the pork barrel politics and massive increases in welfare that you suggest/

                Been having one of your delusional flashbacks mate? Where did I suggest massive increases in welfare? I think you might need remedial reading and cognitive lessons. Oh wait… the government knocked them on the head. Sorry fella you will have to remain an illiterate fool.

                • Monty …
                  21 February 2014 at 5:05 pm

                  I think it is you who needs to re-read – your comment is and I quote “Key is on record as saying Muldoon was the PM he admired the most, so don’t be surprised if he doesn’t copy him later this year with another massive short-term bribe!”

                  I correctly challenged that statement of yours plus the statement of David H who said “Yeah and another 3 years of Key and we’ll be well on the same track as 1975”

                  I am always amazed at the anger of the left. Under a little stress because it will be “three more years” ????

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    21 February 2014 at 5:24 pm

                    You’re amazed, Monty?

                    Get a clue.

                  • Anne …
                    21 February 2014 at 6:37 pm

                    And what little man has the word ‘welfare’ got to do with the word ‘bribe’?

                    welfare: satisfactory state, health and prosperity, well-being.

                    bribe: money offered to procure illegal and/or dishonest action in favour of giver.

                    Oh yes, bribe it was when Muldoon indulged… bribe it will be when Key follows suit.

                    Prediction: the bribe will be announced around June/July of this year – three to four months before the early September/October election.

        • Huginn 1.2.1.3
          21 February 2014 at 9:10 pm

          +1
          It’s all getting very Muldooney.

      • greywarbler 1.2.2
        21 February 2014 at 9:55 am

        Anne
        It would be good if someone planning strategy for Labour had a chat with you. In this world of misty apprehension of reality by the voters, it is difficult to bring reality out clearly plus the direction for travel out.

    • The Real Matthew 1.3
      20 February 2014 at 10:22 pm

      The house will be in a Trust for Asset protection purposes

      There will be no tax advantages in doing so as the house is not rented

  2. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 2
    20 February 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Then allow me to rephrase. Do the Cunliffes own the Herne Bay property or has it been placed in a Trust for some reason?

    • mickysavage 2.1
      20 February 2014 at 3:28 pm

      Like I said SHG let Key disclose his financial position then we can have a proper discussion.

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 2.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

        I only ask because Cunliffe as Shadow Finance Minister had some strong things to say about people in the top income bracket who avoided tax — sorry, “protected their assets” — by placing them in Trusts.

        I’d hate to think that Cunliffe said one thing and did another. That would never do.

        • Hayden 2.1.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 4:05 pm

          Any chance of a quote?

          I’d hate to think that Cunliffe said one thing and then someone else said he said something different.

          The fact that putting your house in a family trust has no tax implications does not mean that there are no other tax advantages to a family trust, i.e., paying yourself via the trust.

          • Debbie Brown 2.1.1.1.1
            20 February 2014 at 6:05 pm

            Considering that all trust income is taxed at a flat 33%, whereas for individuals only income over 70k is taxed at 33%, there really is no tax advantage to holding property in a trust.

            Not to mention that one doesn’t usually receive taxable income on the family home anyway. I sincerely doubt Cunliffe is running a B&B in the spare bedroom.

            • mickysavage 2.1.1.1.1.1
              20 February 2014 at 8:32 pm

              Agreed and agreed Debbie.

              Doesn’t stop a bit of smearing tho …

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1.2
              21 February 2014 at 1:28 pm

              If you’re over 70 having most of your property properly stashed in a trust is pretty handy when you are looking at rest home care options.

        • Cancerman 2.1.1.2
          20 February 2014 at 9:06 pm

          It is owned in a trust.

        • felix 2.1.1.3
          20 February 2014 at 9:20 pm

          “avoided tax — sorry, “protected their assets” — “

          Do you really not understand what asset protection means, SHG?

          I’ll give you an example: Someone is divorced or widowed and puts the family home into trust so that if they re-marry, a new spouse won’t have claim over the asset which, on the death of the current owner can be passed to their children as intended.

          That’s one scenario in which a trust is a legitimate tool for protecting assets and has nothing to do with avoiding tax. There are plenty of others.

          But I guess when you’re a dishonest shitbag your mind goes straight to the potential for a rort.

      • David H 2.1.2
        21 February 2014 at 10:51 am

        What is Key going to do a Banks. “I signed it, But I did not read it”

    • srylands 2.2
      20 February 2014 at 3:44 pm

      It is in a Trust

      http://www.parliament.nz/resource/0000262069

      Typically, the main reason is protection of property, not minimisation of tax. Anyway it is nobody’s business but that of David Cunliffe.

      • Tracey 2.2.1
        20 February 2014 at 3:51 pm

        I wonder if brownlee is renting these out, and what the rent today is compared to, say, later 2010?

        Properties (x2), Ilam, Christchurch
        Property, Bryndwr, Christchurch
        Property, Fendalton, Christchurch

        • BrucetheMoose 2.2.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 4:55 pm

          Yes, after continually denying for the last two and a half years there is no housing shortage or rental prices out of control in Christchurch. His response. “Leave it to the market.”
          Now we know why.

        • BrucetheMoose 2.2.1.2
          20 February 2014 at 5:07 pm

          Yes, and after Brownlee emphatically denying continuously for 2 and a half years that there is no housing shortage and rental prices aren’t out of control in Christchurch, his simplistic reply to it all has always been – “Leave it to the market to sort out.”
          Now we know why.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.2.2
        20 February 2014 at 4:29 pm

        Anyway it is nobody’s business but that of David Cunliffe.

        Actually, it’s everyone’s business if that trust is being used to dodge taxes and/or other nefarious purposes.

      • karol 2.2.3
        20 February 2014 at 4:46 pm

        Thanks for the links – that Amy Adams has a lot of commercial and residential properties in Trusts.

        Paula Bennett – 3 houses, including one in Mt Eden.

        Hmmm… Cunliffe is a patron of a couple of local sports clubs

        And that’s just looking at the top of the list.

  3. Tracey 3
    20 February 2014 at 3:27 pm

    Ah yes, HootOn… didn’t he jump on something about this when the labour leadership race was on.

    The headline from that exchange in parliament yesterday could have been

    PM doubts Salvation Army findings

  4. Jenny 4
    20 February 2014 at 3:28 pm

    It is my contention that it is the moderately well off, and even the extremely well off, that have the leisure, the education, and the chance to look at the big picture, rest of us are ground down by the struggle just to get by. Often that world view is coloured by their social position some times it is not.

    Lorde captured the zeitgeist of the time by singing of counting dollars on the train, and having no post code envy, despite hailing from the North Shore, not South Auckland.

    Most of the greatest rebels of all time have sprung from the middle classes.*

    Class position is no measure of your humanity, there have been class traitors on both sides of the class divide.

    Bravo David Cunliffe.

    *I haven’t listed them, because it would be shorter list of rebels who weren’t from the middle classes.

  5. Cemetery Jones 5
    20 February 2014 at 3:29 pm

    “Matthew Hooton for instance is tweeting asking for evidence that Cunliffe has interests in two or more properties on Marine Parade.”

    That’s interesting. There are many on the right who have tried to keep the story alive of Labour’s ‘dirt digging’ mission to Australia on rumours about Key before the 2008 election. Sounds like Hooton just ceded that moral high ground for nothing…

    • Tracey 5.1
      20 February 2014 at 3:37 pm

      he tried it back during the labour leadership campaign as I recall.

      Because the Nat’s focus is always about the money they cant imagine why monied people aren’t fixated on just money.

      Tolley and Collins on Turia’s clothes and more importantly the idea if you have money you can’t speak about the poor. Same meme cropping up against Cunliffe.

      I agree with jenny. Who will speak for those who are struggling, when you are drowning with one hand above the water waving and the other keeping you afloat, screaming HELP ME, just fills you up with water.

      • Cemetery Jones 5.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 4:02 pm

        What impresses me about Cunliffe is that he’s taken some really heavy personal attacks over the last couple of years, but I’ve never seen him retaliate in kind. That takes a lot of discipline, and dare I say it, a strong sense of forgiveness.

        • Saarbo 5.1.1.1
          21 February 2014 at 11:42 am

          Yep, that’s a fair point.

          Hell if I had faced what he has faced over the last 2 years I would have flattened someone (or several) by now…he has a special temperament.

  6. anker 6
    20 February 2014 at 3:41 pm

    I think its a real sign that National (Hooten etc ) have got nothing when they try these tactics.

    I think we need a stock phrase here. Like stick to the issues e.g Salvation Army Report, rather than attack the person.

    DC’s financial arrangements are his own affair, unless its something illegal, then call the police SHG.

    I can’t wait for the next Scott Yorke satire…………DC has taken a vowel of poverty and now lives in a caravan. National now agree to listen and answer questions about child poverty……….or Karen Cunliffe was seen in New World buying Kapiti coast cheese, rather than Valupac Colby

    • Enough is Enough 6.1
      20 February 2014 at 4:11 pm

      I completley agree anker. DC needs a stock standard response to all the bullshit which is going to come his way this year.

      He has been found wanting because he simply says too much (i.e don’t give Gower the opportunity to spout bollocks).

      He doesn’t have Key’s ability to deflect with the ‘ohh shucks’ smile and lame joke. He just needs to be matter of fact and silience the arseholes.

  7. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7
    20 February 2014 at 3:41 pm

    It is great to hear of people who have experienced good fortune in their lives actively working to improve the circumstances of those who have been less fortunate – Good on you Mr Cunliffe

    What a good sport that Mr Cunliffe is; and what an amazing contrast he provides to that Mr Johnny-Pull-the-Ladder-Up-Key.

    • Tracey 7.1
      20 February 2014 at 3:45 pm

      have you seen that Mr Fletcher has apologised to Key for giving him wrong numbers (all too low) regarding 2013 surveillance.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 3:54 pm

        @ Tracey

        lol I’m having a wee bit of difficulty connecting your comment to this thread’s subject (was it supposed to be in the other thread re Ireland?)….but no I haven’t heard that – have you got a link?

    • BM 7.2
      20 February 2014 at 3:57 pm

      How much money does Cunliffe donate to charity?

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.2.1
        20 February 2014 at 3:59 pm

        @ BM

        How the f* should I know?

        • BM 7.2.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 4:11 pm

          You said

          It is great to hear of people who have experienced good fortune in their lives actively working to improve the circumstances of those who have been less fortunate – Good on you Mr Cunliffe
          What a good sport that Mr Cunliffe is; and what an amazing contrast he provides to that Mr Johnny-Pull-the-Ladder-Up-Key.

          Key donates a % of his salary to charity, is that not helping those less fortunate.?

          What does David do when it comes to helping the less fortunate?.

          Giving other peoples tax to labour supporters doesn’t count, btw

          • Enough is Enough 7.2.1.1.1
            20 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

            what % does Key donate?

            And prove it arse hole

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.2
            20 February 2014 at 4:15 pm

            David sweeps maggots off the Treasury benches.

          • Tracey 7.2.1.1.3
            20 February 2014 at 4:22 pm

            “Key donates a % of his salary to charity, is that not helping those less fortunate.?” Link please. At least you have changed your position, you used to post, or someone with similar views to you used to post, he donated ALL his salary?

            What percentage and to which charity/s

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.3.1
              20 February 2014 at 4:32 pm

              “Gives generously to charity” – so did Allen Robert Glick. It’s meaningless, especially in the context of the hateful policies Key enacts.

          • freedom 7.2.1.1.4
            20 February 2014 at 4:28 pm

            Key donates a % of his salary to charity,

            The Prime Minister often speaks of these donations as events of record BM,
            yet John Key has never proven even $1 has been donated to charity from his Prime Ministerial salary.

            If you have something proving he has, please educate us all.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.4.1
              20 February 2014 at 4:33 pm

              Who cares how much the prick gives? Will he ever give enough to redress the damage he’s done?

            • McFlock 7.2.1.1.4.2
              20 February 2014 at 4:55 pm

              personally, I just reckon that both BM and Key are just damned liars.

              • Akldnut …
                20 February 2014 at 8:28 pm

                I’m guessing Key would donate something to charity just so he could say he did, and even if it was pittance he would be right in claiming that a percentage of his pay goes out and be able to prove it. We just can’t disprove it.

                Until then……….wasting time and effort.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.2.1.1.5
            20 February 2014 at 4:33 pm

            @ BM

            What Cunliffe promotes are things that will benefit a large proportion of New Zealanders – not just Labour voters – it is a pity not all realised that – or there would be more Labour voters and we wouldn’t have any worry about silly right-wing governments getting in at all.

            Re Key’s donations – please provide links
            Hand outs are not really the best way of helping people -nor society as a whole – it is a pity that Key doesn’t realise that, although the impression I’ve gotten over the last 6 years is that Key only gives hand-outs to wealthy people – funded by taking off the poor – and that makes even less sense – is even less effective.

            The best way a person can help others is to ensure society provides opportunities to all people – not just those who are already in good circumstances – I am of the impression this is what Mr Cunliffe indicated Labour intends to do in his Speech of the Nation.

            I don’t know all the details yet, though, of course, however: aiming for good jobs for all, including pay rates, is a very good example of the type of thing that will improve people in poor circumstances to ‘help them help themselves’. This is something that successive governments don’t appear to have focussed on at all. Ensuring our education system is not degenerated (as National clearly plan to do) is also a very important approach. You can look up Labour’s Website for more – I’m not going to list everything in that speech to you here.

      • McFlock 7.2.2
        20 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

        like key donates anything other than hardship and struggle to those less fortunate to him.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.3
        20 February 2014 at 4:10 pm

        Watch these right wing hypocrites in their little fantasy world. Attack Cunliffe for attacking Key’s money – which he didn’t. Proceed to attack Cunliffe’s money.

        Get all whiny when someone points out the pox-ridden corpses of ethics and honesty rotting between their ears.

        • BM 7.2.3.1
          20 February 2014 at 4:23 pm

          See this is the issue, Cunliffes a rich prick, Keys a rich prick.

          For some reason only known to Cunliffe/Labour, they attack Key by implying Key’s out of touch and living on his own world because he’s a rich prick which is completely fucking ludicrous since Cunliffe’s a rich prick as well.

          Every one just thinks WTF, $2.5 million dollar do up, $700,000 income is average?, who the fuck is he trying to kid and why?

          The sad thing through is that Cunliffe feels he has to do this other wise he won’t be accepted by the labor party supporters.

          Success seems to be a dirty word on planet Labour

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.3.1.1
            20 February 2014 at 4:26 pm

            “…attacks Key.” Citation needed. No cherry picking – read the exchange in Hansard and see who accuses who of “needing to get out more”, and see what ensues, then note that the long bow you were drawing just snapped.

          • Tracey 7.2.3.1.2
            20 February 2014 at 4:27 pm

            Did you read the actual exchange through hansard? Key was Attacking the salvation army. I guess we can cross them off the list of charities you say he donates to.

            • BM 7.2.3.1.2.1
              20 February 2014 at 4:44 pm

              Cunliffe’s just the latest in a line of Labor leaders who attacked Key because he’s wealthy.

              Look, here’s H1 trying to run down Key because of his wealth

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10458910

              Look, here’s Goff trying to run down Key because of his wealth

              http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/phil-goff-and-politics-of-envy.html

              http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/john-key-nbr-rich-list-denial-cw-98288

              Couldn’t find anything on Shearer, but I get the feeling he rather destroyed that angle of attack by forgetting about the million dollars he had stashed offshore.

              It’s such a winning strategy no wonder Cunliife/Labour have continued with it.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                20 February 2014 at 4:48 pm

                All except for the part where it happened.

                How feeble that you have no better attack strategy than to make shit up. Hansard calls you a liar and still your incontinence persists.

                • Tracey …
                  20 February 2014 at 4:51 pm

                  Maybe BM is really John Key, getting all his info from Whaleoil?

                  Chris Hipkins had a good go yesterday on the Slater thing.

              • Tracey …
                20 February 2014 at 4:49 pm

                i know you can copy and paste. was my question too hard for you?

                Did you read the actual exchange through hansard?

                It is so useful to go to the original source when you can.

              • Tracey …
                20 February 2014 at 5:04 pm

                ” Hon David Parker: Why does the Government use the Labour Cost Index in its determination of the minimum wage? Is it because the index is the official measure of the change in wage rates?

                Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government does not use the Labour Cost Index to determine the minimum wage. Second, the Labour Cost Index does not measure what people get paid. It is an index of the value of labour for specific skill sets and specific industries. What measures what people get paid is the quarterly employment survey, and that shows rising real incomes.

                Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the document that shows that the Government uses the Labour Cost Index as the basis—

                Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document.

                Hon David Parker: It is a combination of Statistics New Zealand information and information released by the Government at the time the minimum wage is set.

                Mr SPEAKER: I think it is a marginal call, but on the basis that the House can decide, leave is sought to table that documentation. Is there any objection to that being done? There is objection.”

                Why object to the document if English is so certain he is not relying on it? It’s not a rhetorical question BM, try and answer it. I doubt you can copy an d paste an answer from kiwivblog or WO, so try to think for yourself. Why do you think Mr Engllish uses a total increase in wages to support his view of success in NZ? Even though he knows that includes huge increases for those top earners which skew the real picture?

                [lprent: Seems to be drifting a long way from the post. Move it into OpenMike (or the other posts on this topic that are still open) if you want to debate this. ]

          • Tracey 7.2.3.1.3
            20 February 2014 at 4:41 pm

            “But who are they listening to for advice? It is not the Salvation Army, because John Key said it ought to get out and look at what is happening on the street. He said that to the Salvation Army. I have to say that they are not listening to the Children’s Commissioner,” Hansaard Feb 19 2014

          • anker 7.2.3.1.4
            20 February 2014 at 7:16 pm

            O.k. maybe they are both “rich” but not both “pricks”.

            We can judge this by their policies. DC Best start (yes I know that includes people earning up to $150,000, but read Ian Cassel former commissioner of children’s excellent comments on this). We invest in our children we make policy about it and what we are signaling is this is a society that cares and wants the best for all children who are afterall our future.

            All John Key’s policy have been directed at enabling ambition and greed. Cassel said we need a degree of these qualities in our community, but we don’t enable and encourage and have this as the dominant theme in public policy, which is what JK and Nact have done.

            I think the left need a little code word when the right is trying to detract from the real issue by raising income, castles and the likes. I suggest they say something like “here comes the jacket again! Let stick with child poverty.

            • Bob 7.2.3.1.4.1
              21 February 2014 at 12:48 pm

              “Best start ” Should be renamed beneficiary start.
              Those on modest working incomes (dependant on the number of children) get WFF tax credits and Paid parental leave (which Labour said they would extend to 6 months), so they wouldn’t be eligible for half of the 12 months, and then wouldn’t get the full $60 for the remainder of the 12 months due to their existing WFF tax credits.
              Those earning high salaries (up-to $150,000) wouldn’t recieve it for the first 6 months due to paid parental leave, and then would recieve more than those on the lower salaries for the next 6 months due to the fact they don’t recieve WFF.
              Meanwhile beneficiaries recieve the payment for a full 3 years……remind me again why public perception is that Labour are no longer the ‘workers party’ and are now the beneficiaries party?

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                21 February 2014 at 1:32 pm

                @ Bob

                Are you suggesting that the people who don’t qualify for the full payment of Best Start need it?

                Or are you objecting to people without jobs being given assistance to ensure their children are better provided for?

                If your objection is the second option, what part of the following quote of Cunliffe’s State of the Nation speech do you not understand?:

                I entered politics because I want every Kiwi kid to have the same opportunities I did.

                That’s why under Labour:

                •A full day’s work will cover the basics;
                •There will be more jobs available, and wages will catch-up with prices.
                •New Zealanders will pay what is fair – whether in their power bill, their tax bill, or their grocery bill.
                •And every child in this country will have the best start in life.

                You are arguing about the Best Start policy without taking the whole context into account.

          • felix 7.2.3.1.5
            20 February 2014 at 9:40 pm

            “See this is the issue, Cunliffes a rich prick, Keys a rich prick.

            For some reason only known to Cunliffe/Labour, they attack Key by implying Key’s out of touch and living on his own world because he’s a rich prick which is completely fucking ludicrous since Cunliffe’s a rich prick as well.”

            No, BM, Cunliffe is not a prick.

            You guys have really got to get over the idea that just because someone once called John Key a rich prick that all rich people must be pricks.

            It’s basic fucking set theory that we all learned in primary school. God knows why you still can’t grasp it.

            • framu 7.2.3.1.5.1
              21 February 2014 at 9:36 am

              “just because someone once called John Key a rich prick that all rich people must be pricks.”

              its really really weird

              of course theres those who ignore that for the sake of the slur – but they do appear to be a minority

        • Tracey 7.2.3.2
          20 February 2014 at 4:23 pm

          well, they were assisted by the media not covering correctly. Mimics the Turei thing. Media reports made it seem like Tolley responded to an attack by Turei, which was never made.

    • idlegus 7.3
      20 February 2014 at 4:09 pm

      +100!

    • The Pink Postman 7.4
      20 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

      Its not how much money one has ,but how you spend it .Lord
      Mountbatten Labour Party member .

  8. bad12 8
    20 February 2014 at 3:49 pm

    National seem hell bent upon digging the hole ever more deeper don’t they, David Cunliffe should stop defending Himself about where the Cunliffes, plural, have bought their home,

    Simply pointing out that every middle class family in New Zealand owns/part owns a very similar piece of property which they call the family home, might just shut the mouth of Slippery the Prime Minister and tragic wannabes like Hooton up for a while,

    Just like we do not expect Metiria Turei to live in a State House and dress in sack-cloth as a perquisite to attacking child poverty and the lack of income for the worst off in society, we hardly expect David Cunliffe to have to up-root His family and move elsewhere so as to conform to some Tory Scum’s idea of what is or is not correct…

    • Tracey 8.1
      20 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

      YUP, cunliffe has to answer everything with. Someone has to stand up for the half of all kiwis struglling at under $22 per hour. Why not me? It’s what the peopple of my electorate want me to talk abouot.

      • idlegus 8.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 4:19 pm

        “Someone has to stand up for the half of all kiwis struglling at under $22 per hour. Why not me?” – thats a very good line!

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9
    20 February 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Mike, if you really are bemused by it I’d ask where you’ve been. Cunliffe storming out of that press conference was the last straw for our fearless fourth estate /sarc.

  10. tinfoilhat 10
    20 February 2014 at 3:58 pm

    As a non labour or national voter I thought this whole issue was poorly handled by Cunliffe and his team.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/national/89246.html

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      20 February 2014 at 4:04 pm

      Perhaps you should read the relevant Hansard transcript (which conforms to Mike Smith’s description) and tell me where Cunliffe attacked Key for living in a multimillion dollar home, the way 3 News reported it.

      As you read, you may find evidence of 3 News “presenting” the debate according to a particular “frame”.

      • Tracey 10.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 4:29 pm

        YUP. the REAL headline should have been key attacks salvation Arm Report

      • Tracey 10.1.2
        20 February 2014 at 4:33 pm

        tv3 news website website

        “The comment in the House was made in relation to Mr Key putting down the Salvation Army, with their annual report on poverty issues. In that context, I think it was fair,” says Mr Cunliffe.

        “But let me be very clear – I am not ashamed of where I live. My family has worked very hard, and we’ve had opportunity which has been provided by a good state education system, a good healthcare system – it looked after my father when he was very, very ill – and I’m pleased that I had those opportunities, just as Mr Key did. The difference between us is we don’t pull the ladders up.”

        Mr Key was raised in a state house in Christchurch, and grew up to make tens of millions of dollars on the money markets. His current home is worth almost $10 million.

        Mr Cunliffe says despite his upbringing, Mr Key has turned his back on state housing.

        “Mr Key doesn’t like state housing now, apparently – he canned some in his electorate of Hobsonville. I think that is unfortunate, and I want to make sure that whether it’s housing, education or healthcare, young New Zealanders can expect a good state to give them the choices I had when I was young.”

        Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Cunliffe-not-ashamed-of-Herne-Bay-address/tabid/1607/articleID/332929/Default.aspx#ixzz2tpV3yIUo

        Read this lnk, and answer me two questions;

        IF you have never seen cunliffe or key’s house,whose do you think is in the picture?

        http://www.3news.co.nz/Cunliffe-hiding-25M-mansion-from-voters–Key/tabid/1607/articleID/332573/Default.aspx

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 10.1.2.1
          20 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

          @ Tracey

          “IF you have never seen cunliffe or key’s house, whose do you think is in the picture?”

          Whose house was in the picture? I assumed it was Cunliffe’s

          • Puddleglum 10.1.2.1.1
            20 February 2014 at 8:23 pm

            It’s John Key’s. As soon as you start watching the video it becomes clear.

            • Akldnut 10.1.2.1.1.1
              20 February 2014 at 9:23 pm

              ………………..The difference between us is we don’t pull the ladders up.”

              Cunliffe now needs to rephrase this sentence because I think people are all tired of hearing it said that way.

              The difference between us is “They used the system and are dismantling it….. so hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders won’t have the same access. NZ history has shown that Labour don’t pull ladders up, we build them.

              • Puddleglum …
                21 February 2014 at 8:44 am

                Good point Akldnut.

                It’s worth reminding people that it took deliberate political will and publicly organised effort to build the ladders in the first place.

  11. unpcnzcougar 11
    20 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Seriously, he brought this crap on himself. He should have said nothing. If his wife has stopped breast-feeding perhaps they can find somewhere to live in his electorate given that was the reason he bought in Herne Bay.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      20 February 2014 at 4:19 pm

      Clearly, on your planet, when John Key says something that means David Cunliffe said it. Or perhaps you’re simply ignorant of the facts.

      Read the relevant Hansard transcript summarised above.

      • unpcnzcougar 11.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 4:23 pm

        I don’t pay much mind to John Key – I don’t need to. But transcript or not Cunliffe has said he bought in Herne Bay so his wife can breast feed – Cool that should be the end of it. He needs to pick a fight he can win – supporters can’t relate to someone who is probably perceived as being right of centre – sure he worked hard for what he has got – so did John Key – but the reality is most of us work hard and will never have anything near what he has and that disengages supporters – he needs to change the narrative imho.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 4:38 pm

          Cunliffe picked no fight, as you might have guessed from my comment, or the post at the top of the page. Are you English-comprehension challenged or something? Your refusal to read makes you ignorant, and your rush to form an opinion from ignorance makes you a fool. Why should anyone pay your opinion the slightest attention?

          Lift your game.

          • unpcnzcougar 11.1.1.1.1
            20 February 2014 at 5:06 pm

            “Why should anyone pay your opinion the slightest attention?” Because I’m always right 🙂

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1.1.1
              20 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

              Then pray tell – what do you think of Key attacking the sallies so soon after confessing his strong links with Whale Oil?

              Personally, I think it bolsters the narrative that Key is callous and out-of-touch, and every little helps.

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    20 February 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Labour does not believe that wealth is inherently wrong

    Then Labour are living in Lala Land with National and the mainstream economists. Under the capitalists system where a few people accumulate more and more of the communities wealth (Power generation, land, minerals, fish, etc) to themselves the less there is for everyone else which inevitably decreases the opportunities for them to get ahead.

    Capitalism creates poverty.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.1
      20 February 2014 at 4:47 pm

      @ DTB

      We have one word for many forms of Capitalism – this really does create a lack of clarity – confusion.

      Some forms acknowledge the weakness of the capitalist system and address them – other forms of capitalism enhances the weaknesses of the capitalism – we have been living under increasingly pure forms of laissez-faire capitalism – this is a form that increases the weaknesses of capitalism – as you so astutely describe.

      I know which type of capitalism I prefer – the first type – and until a better system comes along Labour, Greens and Mana are the parties to vote for the better version of capitalism.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 4:50 pm

        A kind of small business and regional capitalism is also usually very helpful for local communities.

        Trans-national corporate capitalism – well that’s just destructive and inhuman.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2
        20 February 2014 at 6:00 pm

        We have one word for many forms of Capitalism – this really does create a lack of clarity – confusion.

        I think the confusion comes about from people believing that there are many forms of capitalism when there isn’t.

        What we need is a base system that ensures that nobody is living in poverty (not influenced by the so called business cycle) and also ensures that the entrepreneurs have access to the resources they need to be entrepreneurial. Capitalism is the exact opposite of this as it increases poverty so that the resources are delivered into the control of the capitalists in an exponential accumulation. This has been true for 5000 years and the result has always been over accumulation by the few who then misused the resources resulting in the collapse of the society.

        • The Real Matthew 12.1.2.1
          20 February 2014 at 10:31 pm

          Someone once designed a system that was supposed to do exactly that.

          They called it Communism.

          Apparently it didn’t go so well.

          • Puddleglum 12.1.2.1.1
            21 February 2014 at 8:55 am

            I don’t think DTB’s prescription resembles either the ideology or practical instances that have been labelled ‘communism’:

            ” what we need is a base system that ensures that nobody is living in poverty (not influenced by the so called business cycle) and also ensures that the entrepreneurs have access to the resources they need to be entrepreneurial.“

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.1.2.2
          21 February 2014 at 1:51 pm

          @ DTB

          “I think the confusion comes about from people believing that there are many forms of capitalism when there isn’t.”

          This is simply incorrect

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Mercantilism_2

          n.b This page doesn’t mention all the other names that we call the system we currently have either; such as crony capitalism, trans-national corporate capitalism etc

    • Enough is Enough 12.2
      20 February 2014 at 5:10 pm

      +100 Draco

      And until people like Mickey Savage realise that, we are going to continue living this now 30 year neo liberal nightmare which Labour initiated and gifted us.

  13. TightyRighty 13
    20 February 2014 at 4:46 pm

    I love it how OAB decides that because someone holds an opinion that doesn’t slavishly worship labour, that person and their opinion doesn’t count.

    On last polling results, no gives a toss what labour thinks.

    But more importantly, why does labour hate successful people if they don’t side with labour? Why alienate the successful so much that there is no hope of bringing them into the fold? Class warfare is alive and well in the Labour Party ranks. But only there. It’s one of the many reasons mainstream New Zealand is turned off by labour and it’s message. You can’t buy successful people with $60 a week, if they have a new child.

    • Tracey 13.1
      20 February 2014 at 4:53 pm

      Why does john key hate the salvation Army and think that they, who run homes for the drug, gambling and alcohol addicted, the homeless, give furniture and other stuff to those in need, need to get out on the streets more?

      Why does he think the Children’s Commissioner knows nothing about children in poverty?

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.2
      20 February 2014 at 5:10 pm

      @ Tighty Righty

      “…But more importantly, why does labour hate successful people if they don’t side with labour?”

      This is pretty warped, Tighty Righty

      a. The wider Labour membership voted in Cunliffe with large numbers of support – apparently a very ‘successful’ in your sense of the word – so clearly they don’t ‘hate’ ‘successful’ people in general

      b. However it is actually your main premise that is the most warped part: – not sure whether Labour hate people who side with National – yet any animosity wouldn’t be to do with their ‘success’ – it would be based on political ideology – not the amount of money they had.

      Put it this way: Are you suggesting that unlike Labour, National have no animosity toward ‘successful’ people when they ‘don’t side with National’?

      Careful with your answer

      • BM 13.2.1
        20 February 2014 at 5:27 pm

        I think this is where the political left trip up, you think people who vote right are all these political ideologues who have read Atlas shrugged 1000x, quote Ayn Rand while praying at the alter of Neoliberalism etc.

        Truth is most people who vote right give more thought to wiping their arse than what they do thinking about their political ideologies.

        What you’d more likely see is people scratching their heads wondering why a business person would support a party that is so anti business, anti wealth, all seems a bit self defeating.

        • McFlock 13.2.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 5:34 pm

          And any of them with half a brain would realise the opposition aren’t “anti-business”, they’re “anti-theft”. Despite your best efforts at spreading the “anti-business” lie.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.2
          20 February 2014 at 5:34 pm

          Perhaps because they know the left runs the economy better than the bought party does? As demonstrated by every left-led NZ government ever?

          That’s probably it. yep, I’m going with that. Government surpluses, debt repayment, wages matching inflation, just better times all round, and without the insufferable born-to-rule Tory arrogance and the rotten authoritarian stupidity.

          • The Real Matthew 13.2.1.2.1
            20 February 2014 at 10:34 pm

            Amazing then that left governments get voted out of office with all those credentials

            • McFlock 13.2.1.2.1.1
              21 February 2014 at 11:21 am

              A tired lab5 was voted out by a party that pretended to be labour-lite. Not much amazing there.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.2.1.3
          20 February 2014 at 5:36 pm

          @ BM

          I note you did not answer my question

          “I think this is where the political left trip up, you think people who vote right are all these political ideologues who have read Atlas shrugged 1000x, quote Ayn Rand while praying at the alter of Neoliberalism etc.”

          Who thinks that? I don’t

          “Truth is most people who vote right give more thought to wiping their arse than what they do thinking about their political ideologies.”

          Lol! I’d agree with that – and is why this country is getting increasingly crappy.

          “What you’d more likely see is people scratching their heads wondering why a business person would support a party that is so anti business, anti wealth, all seems a bit self defeating.”

          Yes, that is the feeling I get about the National party too – I mean it is very clear that their policies only support the very wealthy – 1% – support corporate and big money interests and they really are anti-business and anti wealth for the rest of us.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.3
      20 February 2014 at 5:29 pm

      I love it how on Planet TightRighty “no-one” = 35% of the electorate and then the poor cretin accuses me of thinking people don’t count.

      What a twit.

      We need better wingnuts.

    • floyd 13.4
      20 February 2014 at 6:36 pm

      Tr Define successful.

  14. TightyRighty 14
    20 February 2014 at 4:53 pm

    It’s almost like OAB decides something is therefore it must be so.

    “…. as you might have guessed from my comment, or the post at the top of the page. Are you English-comprehension challenged or something”

    Lol. Classic narcissist

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      20 February 2014 at 5:01 pm

      Read Hansard.

      I can see why you hold your opinion of the exchange, but I’ll be damned if I’ll make your arguments for you aswell as providing a reality check.

      3 News runs the PM’s attack lines for him, without context, or any mention of Key’s attack on the Sallies. You’re playing the man rather than the ball, so that tells me I’m doing something right.

  15. jaymam 15
    20 February 2014 at 5:20 pm

    I am curious why the Auckland Council rates database shows that Mr Cunliffe’s property attracts 24% more in rates even though it has only one fifth of the area of a certain four sections in Parnell, all of which appear to be owned by the same entity and have a total CV of $2,450,000 (including a huge mansion), which is very cheap for an area of 3160 square metres.

    Look them up yourselves, you know how to use Google.
    LOT 6 DP 25017
    LOT 1 DP 25017
    LOT 2 DP 22229
    PT LOT 5 DP 25017

  16. TightyRighty 16
    20 February 2014 at 5:32 pm

    @OAB pretty rich accusing me of playing the man when you’ve just told someone who made reasoned criticism that they’re opinions don’t mean anything because they don’t believe verbatim your version of events. So just go ahead and tell yourself whatever you like. I’m sure the mirror loves hearing it

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
      20 February 2014 at 5:44 pm

      Sure, you think you can just pull opinions out of your arse and have them respected, because that’s what happens in the echo chamber I suppose you imagine is a policy debate.

      Reasoned criticism that won’t read the source material it relies upon doesn’t sound very reasoned to me, but again, I understand your need to take it seriously.

      Oh, and by the way, attacking someone’s opinion is not the same thing as attacking them, you zombie maggot. That was a personal attack, by way of comparison.

    • framu 16.2
      21 February 2014 at 9:41 am

      pretty sure it from a refusal to read a factual record and insisting that the medias version is the gospel

      its not a rejection of differing thought – its a rejection of ignorance of fact

  17. Tautoko Viper 17
    20 February 2014 at 5:41 pm

    So National’s argument is that if you are well-off financially, then you can’t represent or support the views of the financially disadvantaged. To me, the only people who cannot represent the views of the disadvantaged are those who have no empathy and are morally bereft individuals- the sort who are happy to reward themselves and turn a blind eye to the misery of others.
    You didn’t have to be black to march in the anti-apartheid marches.
    You don’t have to be a female to support women’s rights.
    You don’t have to be a chicken to oppose battery cages.
    You don’t have to be a sow to oppose sow crates.
    So John, you don’t have to be poor to speak up about poverty.
    Hypocrisy is defined as the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. (Wikipedia) Pretending to care about the poor while shafting them with nasty policies is an example of hypocrisy.

  18. North 18
    20 February 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Typical thick disgusting National Party filth. Screams of “different rules for me and mine…….more more more !

    The last defines them really.

  19. TightyRighty 19
    20 February 2014 at 6:16 pm

    @OAB. Zombie maggot? Wow. I’m hurt seriously wounded. I have reasoned debate with people who don’t read the source material all the time. Often their opinions and insights are valuable. Disregarding someone purely because they aren’t as fanatical as you because they don’t have the same amount of spare time often leads to a narrow dogmatic view of an issue. Narrow and dogmatic, I like those words. They perfectly describe someone like yourself who is so sure of themselves they’ve confused with knowledge with wisdom.

    I can skim read almost anything and get the gist of the argument or the authors viewpoint. I can generally ascertain where they have gone wrong too. I don’t need to look up Hansard and focus on a narrow section of what was said and go by a partisan interpretation of it. I can glean from my formidable memory all the snippets of the labour rank and file being anti success and display considerable animosity to the wealthy and know that their sudden support and defense of David cunliffes success is purely because he is on their team. Therefore it’s hypocritical.

    • North 19.1
      20 February 2014 at 6:35 pm

      “I……I……I……I……I……I…….

      (am a tighty righty narcissistic fuck) !”

    • Hayden 19.2
      21 February 2014 at 1:22 am

      Holy shit dude, you’re so far up your own arse even M C Escher couldn’t draw you.

    • Murray Olsen 19.3
      21 February 2014 at 2:24 am

      Aw TR, I bet your CV is a laugh a minute. How the hell did Hillary get credit for climbing Everest, or Rutherford for smashing the atom, when we know it must have been you? Aww Walter, you’re so modest, yet with your ability to skim read and memorise really formidable things, you prefer to invent what Cunliffe said rather than actually look at Hansard. Is that because you’re copying your messiah, who also doesn’t like reading documents?

      The TV3 piece was shocking, nothing more than Tory propaganda. They should be charging NAct for running it, or maybe they already have. Did they benefit from that Mediaworks loan?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.4
      21 February 2014 at 8:27 am

      TR, no, read the entire exchange in Hansard, don’t “focus on a narrow section of what was said”. That’s what the 3News report does. It starts at the end and doesn’t mention the beginning at all.

      Suspicion of wealth has been around longer than the Labour Party, by the way.

  20. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 20
    20 February 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Isn’t it hilarious that in the second decade of the 21st century, post GFC, the election contest is going to be between the party led by the ex-Merrill Lynch millionaire white male from Parnell (educated at Harvard) and the party led by the ex-Boston Consulting Group millionaire white male from Herne Bay (educated at Harvard)?

    • risildowgtn 20.1
      20 February 2014 at 6:33 pm

      Key was educated where? Harvard? BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
      The clown was educated @ Burnside high in CHCH u clown and attended Canterbury uni…

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 20.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 6:37 pm

        John Key was born in Auckland and moved to Christchurch when he was a child. He was educated at Burnside High School and gained a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Canterbury.

        John launched his investment banking career in New Zealand in the mid-1980s. After 10 years in the New Zealand market he headed offshore, working in Singapore, London, and Sydney for United States investment banking firm Merrill Lynch. During that time he was in charge of a number of business units, including global foreign exchange and European bond and derivative trading. In 1999, John was invited to join the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and on two occasions undertook management studies at Harvard University in Boston.

        🙂

        Please, tell me how your lizard is totally different from this other lizard.

        • Hayden 20.1.1.1
          20 February 2014 at 6:49 pm

          Two occasions: before lunch, and after lunch.

          Just kidding…

        • Murray Olsen 20.1.1.2
          21 February 2014 at 2:29 am

          Undertook management studies on two occasions – probably went to a couple of seminars. Much more than that and there would be some certificate or other that all you RWNJs would be wanking on about. Tell me again, who pads their CV?

          • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 20.1.1.2.1
            21 February 2014 at 3:41 am

            Do you realise how desperate you sound? 🙂

            OK, I concede the point, Labour’s pakeha male millionaire leader who was born in the Nth Island and went to university in the Sth Island and also attended Harvard and who took up a white-collar position with a rich American multinational firm and then bought a multimillion-dollar house in an expensive Auckland suburb and now lives on an income beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary New Zealanders is TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN EVERY WAY from National’s pakeha male millionaire leader who was born in the Nth Island and went to university in the Sth Island and also attended Harvard and who took up a white-collar position with a rich American multinational firm and then bought a multimillion-dollar house in an expensive Auckland suburb and now lives on an income beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary New Zealanders.

            NOT THE SAME.

            • felix 20.1.1.2.1.1
              21 February 2014 at 7:03 am

              Yep, they are quite different. One of them is working to improve the lot of ordinary people and one is working to expand the dominance of the elite.

              That’s why you lot are working so hard to discredit Cunliffe; in your feeble grasping minds, anyone who has done alright should be stomping on those below them.

              I pity you and your ignorant selfishness. It will consume you. It will destroy you.

              • Psycho Milt …
                21 February 2014 at 10:39 am

                Yep, they are quite different. One of them is working to improve the lot of ordinary people and one is working to expand the dominance of the elite.

                Indeed. SHG seems to have difficulty distinguishing between relevant differences and irrelevant similarities, but not everyone suffers from that affliction. National voters, for example, don’t seem to have the slightest difficulty in establishing which of the two leaders is the class loyalist and which the class traitor.

        • risildowgtn 20.1.1.3
          21 February 2014 at 6:56 am

          hahahaha auto assuming im a labour voter you clown = massive fuck up yet again troll
          Im a Green voter.

  21. Granted 21
    20 February 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Dear Mickysavage….explaining is losing.

  22. Granted 22
    20 February 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Dear Mickysavage….explaining is losing

  23. North 23
    20 February 2014 at 6:28 pm

    As to the simpering illiterate prick from Parnell……educated at Harvard ? My arse ! Enough money and contacts to have his name entered on some list and piss all over town about it. That’s all. War criminal Bush the Chickenhawk got his name on some Ivy League list somewhere too……..but “edgek8td”. LOL !

  24. Granted 24
    20 February 2014 at 6:39 pm

    @North….envy? Jealousy..or shear idiocy? Or maybe pure hatred….all lovely attributes of course

    • North 24.1
      20 February 2014 at 9:20 pm

      None of the above Grunted. A strident belief in a just society would be fair comment. Pretty much par for the course that those embracing scant wish for the just society should reveal their intimacy with the foul emotions.

      Key could be worth 500 mill’ for all I care. As long as for the price of that there aren’t hundreds of thousands living on the breadline and blamed for it. There are those numbers in New Zealand because of Key and his global ilk. And Key effetely simpers. And narcissistically tries to play Little Churchill. And fantastically declares war on North Korea. Edgek8ted ? LOL !

  25. Granted 25
    20 February 2014 at 6:53 pm

    Dear Mickysavage….I actually believed that Cunliffe was going to really turn things around…he needs some serious help so less time is spent changing feet in his mouth. As a swinging voter he is now turning me off voting labour. He has about three months in my opinion tl get his act tidied up. His continual habit of going on about rich pricks is tiresome…I found that Helen Clark was and still is a committed and aspirational leader as is John Key. Cunliffe doesn’t seem to have that leadership ability…Jones probably does….it has noyhing to do with where his house is

    • Anne 25.1
      20 February 2014 at 7:25 pm

      I think we have a tr–l here.

    • North 25.2
      20 February 2014 at 9:23 pm

      Love the way trolls like to claim they’re an inch away from voting Labour……..except for blah blah blah. You think people don’t see through that shit…….really ?

      • felix 25.2.1
        21 February 2014 at 6:13 am

        Yep. By the way, I’d vote National in a heartbeat if they would just drop all the neo-liberal bullshit and genuinely embrace a long-term agenda of eliminating inequality by uplifting the least privileged in our society and capping wages and profits at a reasonable level, while enhancing our economic sovereignty by committing to public ownership of essential infrastructure, natural monopolies, and strategic assets.

    • Tracey 25.3
      21 February 2014 at 8:19 am

      Swinging from where. Who did you vote for last time and why?

  26. xtasy 26
    20 February 2014 at 8:00 pm

    I am afraid that this is stuff the Nats will exploit, no matter what, and I must regret, yes, they have fair reason for it.

    Of course doing well professionally and with that financially does not disqualify a person like David Cunliffe from taking a solid stand for social justice, as every high earner will pay their taxes, and if a fairer tax system was in place, I am sure David will happily pay a bit more.

    But the issue is rather on “status”, on “privileges”, and that is where left or liberal leaning politicians are easily hollowed out and “exposed” for supposed hypocrisy. This is nothing new. Key is a damned hypocrite of the highest calibre by daring to turn this into an issue. He sold himself as the “state house boy”, raised by a “sole mother”, to appeal to voters, and the damned media did their bit to achieve his aims, which are the Nats’ aims.

    When it comes to Cunliffe, they set up a different set of “rules”, of course, so they try to claim Cunliffe is a high life and big earning, “elite” person, who is not connected to the concerns of the poorer people in NZ.

    They may still have a point, but it is really nothing but total distraction from how alienated the even higher earning, yet more wealthy John Key is totally ALIENATED from our common daily lots.

    It may perhaps help Cunliffe to show he “shares” his home by hosting some social events that offer participation from the less fortunate, or maybe he could reconsider, that moving to his own electorate, may win him more votes, as it may be more convincing to the voters he and Labour wish to attract. That is what I think.

    Otherwise I am well aware that political parties and movements need talent and well qualified spokespersons and leaders, sadly in the commercial world we live in, they are tending to be the ones that corporate business hires, or if not so, that they would like to hire.

    Labour and all “left of centre” parties all over the world face the same challenges in this, where it is hard to find the talented and able leaders, who have NO exposure to a business career or similar.

    A different society may change things, but that requires us to start rethinking and voting in parties that will deliver such different society and better values.

  27. Tanz 27
    20 February 2014 at 8:25 pm

    It’s all a game of Monopoly, in the end, the pieces end up back in the box and we all end up the same.

    Store up your treasures in Heaven.

    There is nothing wrong with wealthy MPs its only paper.

  28. Skinny 28
    20 February 2014 at 8:46 pm

    I don’t have any issues with his family’s wealth, or anyone else for that matter if they share DC’s view for a fair & just society.

    David Cunliffe just needs to keep it short and sweet. “The real difference between John Key and myself is I have a social conscience and have burning ambition to lift the quality of life for what I deem as normal Kiwi’s, certainly not the rich who have no want for a fair and equitable society.”

    Watched TV1 and TV3 News and the coverage of the Super Market duopoly revelations, showed TV3 start off ok then spun bullshit that Cunliffe didn’t believe in Jones claims. National idiot ex cop (wants to remove the age old law of a right of silence… etc) Sabin would be proud of his political reporter son Brooke for setting the plot Garner is putting out there, which will play out shortly in a Garner-Gower slam dunk soon maybe even tomorrow?

    Hey Duncan full creds your at the top of the game, it’s understandable in your eyes how you see it all now merely as a ratings game and squaring up the ledger with the odd MP. However come on man enough is enough. Your messing with alot of people who are just trying to make the best of what they have been dealt in life. Frankly we couldn’t give a toss about the politicians to be honest. Let things play out fairly and give em a serve when it is really justified.

  29. North 29
    20 February 2014 at 9:33 pm

    Brooke the son of Mike. Well !

    • Skinny 29.1
      20 February 2014 at 10:41 pm

      That is correct, he plays a good hand rarely showing a bias, he is like a deep sleeper spy, only coming out when it matters, we got a glimpse of that on tonight’s skewed coverage of the announcement that the commerce commission has formally launched an inquiry ‘ring fenced’ to complaints against Countdown. Foss fucked up the announcement by stating the ‘whole sector’ is being investigated, National are in damage control and will try out better Labour, see the Greens are trying to get in on the action by Mojo trying to table a code of conduct, rejected by National who will try bury it with their own ‘robust’ flakey scheme.

      Back to Brooke how disappointing for his Father that his arch enermy Winston Peters gets a soft time of it since Key has warned off any attacks outside of his own charade. However if Winnie falters by dropping a bombshell NO deal Key, Brooke will hunt him down like a dog, both are unlikely, if Peters did it would be the 10 days out for polling stunt again. Not enough time to for Brooke to inflict any damage, he would be flushed out though.

  30. Sacha 30
    20 February 2014 at 10:07 pm

    This is just another example of the Nats neutralising their political weaknesses before the election by projecting them onto opposition members. Just like calling Cunliffe and Norman untrustworthy. Works a treat if everyone plays along.

  31. Granted 31
    20 February 2014 at 11:16 pm

    @ anne and north….nope not a troll. I read this site every couple of days….just one of the crowd, but eventually make an occasional comment borne out of frustration….the noisy ones see the quiet ones as trolls….get over yourself….you do more damage to the site. Unless of course you just want every visitor to the site singing off the same song sheet….surely not?

  32. Ergo Robertina 32
    21 February 2014 at 12:39 am

    It is surprising DC is using the line (on Firstline) that he has ‘worked hard’ in relation to having an expensive property.
    Plenty who work very hard cannot even be paid a viable (living) wage in the neolib economy, let alone becoming wealthy.
    The working hard line suggests that if we play the game we get ahead, whereas a labour leader should be pushing to change the game.

    • Tombstone 32.1
      21 February 2014 at 10:40 am

      I couldn’t agree more and I think you’ve hit on a very important point which I have long raised with friends and family. It really irks me when I hear people who have done well life putting it down to having worked hard because if that was indeed the magic formula then how come care givers, laborers, nurses, cleaners to name but a few are not living in lovely big homes and commanding big fat salaries? The reason of course is that not everyone is cut from the same cloth. Some people are born with the ability to grasp highly complex mathematics whereas others are born with a natural inclination toward working with their hands and struggle with academia – we are all wired differently. To assume that everyone has the potential to become a high powered lawyer is in my opinion quite simply dumb. Key was raised in a state house and knew very early on in life that he wanted to pursue money and power. I was raised in a state house and I was more interested in getting out on my BMX and tearing up the local track with my mates and getting into mischief because that’s what boys did. Our wants in life were simple and a lot more humble. Nobody ever told us that how we lived as youngsters was wrong because it wasn’t. We were kids being kids. We had no idea that life as an adult would become this difficult. That successive governments would continue to turn the screws and force us into this never ending battle to keep our heads above water. The only thing I can remember people moaning about was traffic cops … people hated them! But I digress – I agree with you. The language needs to change. We need to place more emphasis on how valuable carers, nurses, cleaners, rubbish collectors, factory process workers etc are to society and how quickly things would fall into disarray if they weren’t there to do the jobs that they do. That needs to be recognized not by the way of lip service but in their pay packets. We need to talk about the outrageous salaries being paid to those at the top and expose it for what it is – outrageous greed. Labour need to clearly outline what they stand for so the public are in no doubt as to the options they have … relentlessly attacking Key and National will only put people off in the end. But claiming that working hard is the key to good fortune is not always the best way to frame things and can in fact sound a little smug to be quite honest.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 32.2
      21 February 2014 at 3:50 pm

      Yep, false frame much?

      “My partner and I both earn a decent income, but it makes my blood boil that so many citizens are being prevented from doing the same, by prejudice, privilege and petty politics. Worse still, those who can’t are being vilified, and we all know who by.”

  33. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 33
    21 February 2014 at 3:29 am

    Didn’t you get the memo? If you don’t have a nice house, then you didn’t work hard. So nice of Mr Cunliffe to remind us.

    • felix 33.1
      21 February 2014 at 6:51 am

      Still having trouble with set theory I see.

      Seriously, we learned this shit in primary school.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 33.2
      21 February 2014 at 4:06 pm

      SHG. I have a nice house. I worked for it, but not as hard as a nurse, for example. Or a minimum wage earner. I had (relatively modest) advantages from birth. Lucky me.

      I wouldn’t have anything if it weren’t for the hard work of others. That nurse who saved my life. That minimum wage earner who works for the person who has enough money to hire me, blah blah.

      Why is this stuff so hard for the right to understand? You behave as though there’s no such thing as society but you all want to live as neighbours. Epic cognitive dissonance.

  34. big bruv 34
    21 February 2014 at 8:10 am

    Of course it is a modest home Micky, I hear that the butlers are not required to wear formal attire when the master is in Wellington. I wonder if you can confirm that over the holidays Cunliffe even polished the Rolls himself?

    Such a good man to the staff as well, apparently Cunliffe gives them every second Sunday off as long as he is not in residence.

    A real man of the people

    • Tracey 34.1
      21 February 2014 at 8:15 am

      So if you are not poor

      …you cannot advocate for them
      them?

      the corollary therefore is john key can only advocate for the very wealthy currency trading and banking?

      Oh, wait a minute

  35. big bruv 35
    21 February 2014 at 8:24 am

    Tracey

    Of course you can, what you should not do is pretend to be poor like Cunliffe does.

    Speaking of the “poor”, do you know if Cunliffe is polishing up on his south Auckland accent for the coming campaign?

    • Enough is Enough 35.1
      21 February 2014 at 9:18 am

      You racist

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 35.2
      21 February 2014 at 12:21 pm

      @ big bruv

      Where has Cunliffe ‘pretended’ to be poor’?

      Your comment indicates that you don’t see the difference between advocating for the poor and pretending to be poor.

      Mr Cunliffe has not been pretending to be poor he has merely promoted the message that we need to ensure everyone has the opportunity to improve their circumstances – this is good for the individual and it is good for society – these opportunities are being systematically taken away by Key’s Government.

      Key is getting frantic and making personal and illogical attacks in response…and you appear to be being suckered in.

      Advocating for people in unfortunate circumstances does not equal ‘pretending to be in unfortunate circumstance’ and to say these two are the same is sheer nonsense.

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 35.3
      21 February 2014 at 1:36 pm

      you greasy luttle fulla un a blue suit au

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 35.3.1
        21 February 2014 at 1:46 pm

        @ SHG

        …So I take it that means you have no proof of the [false] assertions made by big bruv and other frantic righties on this thread then….

  36. Puckish Rogue 36
    21 February 2014 at 8:25 am

    If I was advising Cunliffe I’d just have him say something along the lines of “yes I’ve got a nice house in a nice suburb, my wife and I both studied hard and made sacrifices and we want to give the same opportunity to every child in NZ that we had”

    Its not that hard so whos advising him?

    • Tracey 36.1
      21 February 2014 at 8:31 am

      Puck

      I tbought I read yesterday that he eventually did say that. But i agree with you that he scored an own goal on this one.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 36.2
      21 February 2014 at 8:31 am

      If I was advising Key, I’d say, “look, under normal circumstances, making snide remarks about charity workers who’ve just given you a reality check is a bad idea, but with Paddy Gower’s tongue up your arse you can say anything you like.”

      • Tracey 36.2.1
        21 February 2014 at 8:35 am

        It does seem that way sometimes. Sticking a boot into the sallies would usually make a story or even reporting on the sallies report.

      • tinfoilhat 36.2.2
        21 February 2014 at 8:45 am

        yes that would go down well with the voters ‘:roll:’ => ‘icon_rolleyes.gif’

        • One Anonymous Bloke 36.2.2.1
          21 February 2014 at 2:55 pm

          Ah, if I were advising him what to say to voters, I’d urge him to stick to ad hominem remarks about opposition politicians, never get pinned down on policy detail, and to work on his “tell”.

  37. captain hook 37
    21 February 2014 at 11:35 am

    mathew hooton is a fink and a slimy little creep.
    he thinks because he has a gold rolex that he is abig man but he will always be small.
    he manages to stay just this side of the law but his time is coming.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 37.1
      21 February 2014 at 3:41 pm

      Once upon a time there was a mounted policeman doing his rounds, and he came across a bloodied man in the remains of a nice suit studying the remains of a nice car. “Officer! Look what that idiot did to my car!” the man yelled as the officer approached.

      “Sir, are you by any chance Matthew Hooton?” the policeman enquired.

      “How did you know?” demanded Matthew.

      “Well, your left arm’s been torn off and all you can think about is your car!”

      “Agghhh!” screamed Matthew, “My Rolex!!!!”

  38. felix 38
    21 February 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Here’s a thought.

    big bruv, tighty righty, chris73, BM etc are all saying that anyone on a high income is not allowed to stick up for anyone on a low income.

    Does that mean no-one in parliament is supposed to stick up for the poor? At all?

    Is that what they’re really pushing for?

    • mickysavage 38.1
      21 February 2014 at 2:26 pm

      I suspect Felix that this would in their eyes be an ideal result.

    • MaxFletcher 38.2
      21 February 2014 at 2:43 pm

      It shouldn’t matter what someones bank account looks like – only their actions should matter.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 38.2.1
        21 February 2014 at 2:48 pm

        What a useless word “should” is.

        While you’re busy making up lovely ethical models, household income is the single largest factor in determining education outcomes.

        • MaxFletcher 38.2.1.1
          21 February 2014 at 2:50 pm

          What I am trying to say is it shouldn’t matter what is in Cunliffe’s account, the policies he advocates are what matter.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 38.2.1.1.1
            21 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

            The thing is it does matter. Now, I think Cunliffe’s use of “leafy suburbs of Parnell” was drawing a comparison between Key and the report’s author, of whom Key had said that they need to get out more, but nonetheless he invited the comparison with his own circumstances.

            The funny thing is, if you take it as a comparison between the report’s author and Key, it’s a very good point: the Salvation Army is much better equipped to judge the scale of poverty than Key – who has quite a few other legitimate demands on his time, never mind the leafy suburbs.

            Another way wealth matters is its source, the manner in which it was gained. From a religious perspective, hyper-compressed camels leap to mind. The very scientific Baloney Detection Kit regards the source of information relevant to credibility.

            Should is a useless word.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 38.2.1.1.1.1
              21 February 2014 at 4:13 pm

              Nah, attitude is far more important than bank balance – in fact it is quite important that wealthy people have good attitudes – if everyone in good circumstances had a kindly attitude toward those in less fortunate circumstances we wouldn’t have to be advocating for jobs, work conditions, safety measures to address deaths in mining and forestry, addressing systemic failures , addressing systemic corruption, dealing with financial crises, LIBOR scandals etc – we would have a much fairer society without bringing in more and more rules and policies to curb the effects of those with seriously bad attitudes.

              Most -if not all – of the problems we face are due to poor attitudes – our system would work much better if people had better attitudes.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                21 February 2014 at 4:24 pm

                There’s plenty of evidence that widening income gaps has a deleterious effect upon attitudes.

                Through that lens, attitude is a symptom of the comparison between bank balances.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  21 February 2014 at 4:42 pm

                  …and yet we are receiving the message from National that because Mr Cunliffe is well-off he must not advocate to close these gaps.

                  Someone responds that the policies Mr Cunliffe is advocating is more important than his bank balance and you call bullshit on that… yet you are now saying it is due to our governments not following the type of policies that Cunliffe is promoting that extreme bank balances are created and ensuing bad attitudes toward the less well off is created….I do believe you have just supplied reasoning against your own point re bank balances being more important than policies.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    21 February 2014 at 4:55 pm

                    I didn’t say that bank balances are more important than policies, I said the comparison between one bank balance and another, applied nationally, has an impact on attitudes. Which is an argument for them (measures of relative wealth) being relevant to policy makers.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    21 February 2014 at 5:04 pm

                    Perhaps I’m being too abstract.

                    For example: take John Key. He’s held up as an example of success, but in his own electorate lives a man who is younger than him and wealthier than him by several orders of magnitude. Even at that rarefied level, the gap between the rich and the obscenely wealthy makes for little jealousies, and magnified, given a cats paw of FBI warrant, well, who knows what could happen?

    • chris73 38.3
      21 February 2014 at 9:10 pm

      Nope, I’m saying that Cunliffe talking about Keys home and how much its worth is pretty damn stupid when you live in an expensive house yourself and then making it worse by trying to suggest that your own life style of 500 grand a year + 2.5 million dollar house is “middling”

      • felix 38.3.1
        22 February 2014 at 9:55 am

        “I’m saying that Cunliffe talking about Keys home and how much its worth is pretty damn stupid when you live in an expensive house yourself “

        Except that didn’t really happen, chris.

        This isn’t actually about houses or wealth or salaries or investments. It’s about John Key being so out of touch with what’s happening outside of his 10 million dollar Parnell mansion that he thinks the Sallies need to get out more.

        Can you believe that, chris? John Key thinks he knows more about how bad the struggle is for those at the bottom than the people who actually deal with it every day.

        Now do you see Cunliffe saying anything remotely similar to that? No, of course not. On the contrary, he is holding up the Sallies’ report and saying these people are at the coal face, they know what’s going on better that you or I, listen to them for fuck’s sake.

        But no, Key knows better. And that’s what this is really about, chris. It’s about Key being so arrogant that he can sit in his mansion and imagine that he understands poverty better than the people at the coal face of poverty.

        There is no equivalence between Key and Cunliffe in this instance. None at all. That’s why you’re pretending it’s about having a nice house instead.

  39. Hami Shearlie 39
    21 February 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Why are TV3 showing a house on their website which they imply is David Cunliffe’s house? The article below the photo and the headline are all about Cunliffe’s house, yet the photo is of John Key’s “mansion” sprawling itself over 3 property titles? Misleading yes, on purpose, quite likely! I’ve had a good look at Marine Parade in Herne Bay, and although there are some “mansion” type houses there, there are also many very ordinary looking houses too, certainly not “mansions”! The only reason they are worth so much is their proximity to the water, and the views they may have – many of the actual houses are certainly not what anyone could describe as “mansions” – there are many streets in Auckland, which have many more “grand” houses!

  40. felix 40
    21 February 2014 at 8:23 pm

    “Why are TV3 showing a house on their website which they imply is David Cunliffe’s house?”

    That’ll be because they’re dishonest shitbags, Hami.

  41. Huginn 41
    21 February 2014 at 9:05 pm

    There’s a weird and misogynistic refusal to recognise that David Cunliffe is married to a woman who is working very successfully in a well paid profession. He’s probably been the family’s secondary income earner for years.

    If she was struggling with work life balance issues while she was breast feeding and if she thought that living in Herne Bay would be helpful, then he may not have had much say in it.

  42. well I never 42
    23 February 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Key difference between Key and Cunliffe if that despite living in multi million dollar homes, Cunliffe is still very interested in those who don’t. Key isn’t

Links to post