Written By: - Date published: 12:25 pm, October 1st, 2008 - 68 comments
Categories: national, tax -
Tags: bill english, lies
National just can’t stop lying. We’ve covered National’s lies on wages and migration in the past and our last two posts have debunked National’s lies on crime, the economy, compliance costs, corruption, press freedom and, well, just about everything.
Now they’ve resorted to repeating David Farrar’s discredited lies by deliberately misquoting Helen Clark on tax. Here’s what David’s mate Bill English claims Helen Clark said about tax:
In 2000 Helen Clark was saying: ‘tax cuts are the promises of a visionless and bankrupt people’.
“It’s hard to believe this is the same Helen Clark who has welcomed tax cuts today.”
The actual quote, as we pointed out almost a year ago, was:
‘Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people’
The circumstances Helen Clark was talking about were the year 2000, a time when the country was reeling from nine years of right-wing policies that had battered the poor, slashed wages and brought our public service to its knees.
Tax cuts in those circumstances would certainly have been a path to inequality and underdevelopment, and while I’d personally rather see the money spent on social services, the circumstances in 2008 are very different.
As my man a_y_b said at the time, to misquote Clark so deliberately – by removing the three crucial qualifying words – is an absolute disgrace. And it’s a perfect example of the kind of dishonesty National is now engaging in on a daily basis as we head towards the campaign.
Seriously, if you can’t win without lying what does that say about your policies?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Its pure semantics – don’t get your knickers in a twist – she’s not worth defending. You’ve done nothing to even slightly prove that National are lying here – all you’ve helped do is affirm that Helen Clark is full of it.
So if we are talking about quotes, who was it that saidf this?
sean. it’s not semantics. Clark said that 2000 wasn’t the time for tax cuts. Not the same as saying no time is the right time.
Tune in next week to see sean argue that black is white.
burt – see the word ‘largely’
incidentally, I jsut watched Key’s interview on Breakfast this morning. Henry just helps him along when he gets into trouble. Key’s being to technical and evasive on power prices, Henry says ‘you’re losing people here’
Hmm…I seem to recall one/many of the Standard’s authors misquoting John Key about Kyoto but it was ok then?
Personally I’m not too bothered. The gist of both arguments has been communicated. JK not too fond of the Kyoto Protocol. HC not too fond of tax cuts.
Personally I’m not too bothered.
Congratulations, you’re qualified to be a National voter.
AndrewE. Key said he was ‘somewhat suspicious’ of climate change and Kyoto was a hoax. Clark said 2000 was not the time to cut taxs.
Our contraction to ‘climate change is a hoax’ accurately represents Key’s position. Saying Clark opposed all tax cuts does not.
2006 was the time for tax cuts – but only for special friends of the Labour party.
burt – you mean when working for families came in?
Steve P.
Yes that too. But I was meaning the racing industry. Lucky that NZ1 didn’t have any large donations declared from big business backers in the racing industry or we may have wondered about cash for policies – Doooh!..
Burt, you really are a dreadful bore.
Hey, how come Labour MPs get context around their quotes?
Our contraction to ‘climate change is a hoax’ accurately represents Key’s position.
No, it doesn’t.
“the circumstances in 2008 are very different.”
Damn right, Labour are 15% behind in the polls as they have been for the last year or more and are desperate.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a climate change model that fits the observed data.
Phil. Yes it does.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a climate change model that fits the observed data.
That’s because it’s a complete and utter hoax. I’m certainly somewhat suspicious of it.
It’s interesting how the meaning changed completely with the insertion of a single “a”.
Tane,
I liked burt’s old stuff better than his new stuff. He used to do this great bit where he types “Cullen”, then crosses it out and types “Muppet”. Hilarious.
Really? I was more a fan of retrospective in bold. Wee fella sure was excited when he discovered those html tags.
Good point about the ‘a’ – I hadn’t noticed that.
SP: Our contraction to ‘climate change is a hoax’ accurately represents Key’s position.
How is saying Kyoto is a hoax the same as saying climate change is a hoax?
[nope, saying you are somewhat suspicious of something is substantively the same as saying you think it's a hoax. SP]
Oh, Steve, puhlease. Thta’s just weak.
SP
How about applying your ‘standards’ from here;
“saying you are somewhat suspicious of something is substantively the same as saying you think it’s a hoax. SP”
to here;
“My view is that tax cuts are largely offered as a political bribe, not because of beneficial economic or social effects.” After which you pointed to the word “largely” as some sort of genuine qualifier.
Honestly, like your standards over having Peters and his lies in your govt because it was politically necessary but complaining if it is another govt, your standards have here been shown again to flex depending on your political haggard baggage.
You exhibit, on a regular basis, malleable morality.
National lies… ha ha ha ha.
Applying the same criteria – Clark lied when she said it was not possible to organise a smacking referendum to coincide with the election. Liar.
Countless other examples.
And this labour govt has a proven liar in Peters. Liar.
And lets not forget Benson-Pope, Taitoman, Dalzell, etc. Liars.
As far as I’m concerned you lie yourself when you selectively highlight ‘lies’. Liars.
Applying the same criteria – Clark lied when she said it was not possible to organise a smacking referendum to coincide with the election. Liar.
Debatable at best. That’s your best shot?
Countless other examples.
No there aren’t. Perhaps your moral compass is a bit confused. Here, let me remind you what an actual lie, caught on tape live as it happened, what an actual lie looks like:
Spot that? That’s a lie. Key has gone in to this recently, knows there is incorrect information on record, has chosen no to correct it, and has now chosen to lie about it.
Caught out lying he quickly changes his story. Pathetic.
r0b, whatever. The point is that SP despairs to the heavens about Key’s lies yet turns a blind eye to Clark’s lies. Pathetic. Lacks credibility. And what were you just saying on another thread about stopping the negative whingeing carry-on and engaging constructively?
Clark is a liar. Peters is a liar. Benson-Pope, Taitoman, etc all lied. While in govt.
On the set of justice scales this labour govt has redlined the red-faced-lying-meter.
r0b, whatever.
Yeah OK vto, good for you. Key should get a free pass shouldn’t he. He’s got such a nice suit.
The point is that SP despairs to the heavens about Key’s lies yet turns a blind eye to Clark’s lies.
The point is that Key’s lies are real, and Clark’s debatable or total beat ups.
On the smacking referendum. Have you read the Ministry of Justice advise on this? I’m pretty sure we posted it. The MoJ said a postal ballot would cost bascially the same amount as a concurrent referendum at the genreal election and was preferable for operational reasons – you don’t have to train 15,000 polling staff to handle the referendum as well as the election. In 1999, runnig two referenda with the election lead to significant delays. I was a polling clerk that election, it was a mess.
yeah r0b, whatever. You only ever want to talk about whether Key is honest, competent and has good policies. You never want to talk about how cool he is for making all that money.
“The point is that Key’s lies are real, and Clark’s debatable or total beat ups.”
Ha ha outstanding …… yet more of the same old National is bad Labour is good argument and about as valid as the opposite view taken on other blogs.
SP
The main reason the PM doesn’t want the referendum at the same time as the election is that she and her government have been closely linked to the bill (even though it was the Greens/Bradford’s).
In my opinion it would be unfairly taint the election against Labour if it was held on election day but for the MOJ to suggest it is due to operational reasons is somewhat staggering – are people so thick that they can’t read a statement and tick a Yes/No.
[it's not the voters, its the operational issues of running concurrent votes. SP]
What can I say Steve, you caught me red handed. Don’t tell my Mom, she’d be so ashamed.
Clark lied about the smacking referendum timeframe. Clark lied when she claimed the Peters PC hearing was politically tainted. Clark lies all the time – it’s what politicians do (according to the criteria on this thread). But according to you people only the nats lie…. I mean really, are you serious??
SP, not sure what you’re getting at there. But good effort on avoidance and diversion on my other points in relation to your standards.
Wasn’t it the Electoral Commission who “lied” about the timeframe vto?
did they “lie” too felix? Maybe its a wellington problem
vto: “Clark lied when she claimed the Peters PC hearing was politically tainted.”
Not sure what you’re getting at there – surely that’s her opinion.