Written By: - Date published: 6:19 pm, October 20th, 2008 - 65 comments
Categories: activism, john key -
Tags:
I have to say, these are my favourite so far. There are some talented people out there.
There’s eight versions of this new one on the Campaign Hub, each with an example of Key flipping-flopping
Keep getting them out there guys. The people deserve to know.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
it’s obvious to the rest of us in the world outside this blog that, after nine years of denying us a tax cut, Labour has flip-flopped and given us one a month before the election.
G, your quotes re Labour on tax are mostly 9 years old, and in some cases explicitly contextualised to that time. Now after 9 years of inflation, bracket creep and so on, Labour have decided that it’s time for a tax cut (which fixes 9 years of creep for incomes over 47K and gives a bit more to those under it).
You can call that a flip flop if you like – knock yourself out – it’s obvious to the rest of us in the world outside your head that it’s responding sensibly to circumstances that have changed after 9 years in office. To be unable to adapt to a changing world is a mark of stupidity wouldn’t you say?
Compare and contrast with National and Key, who hasn’t been PM for even 5 seconds (expect perhaps in his dreams), and has already racked up a far larger number of flip flops on a far wider range of issues than is really seemly. Just sayin.
G, people not conceding to your point isn’t through a lack of integrity, but an understanding that your points aren’t vaguely valid.
It’s really quite simple. Labour doesn’t ‘believe in tax cuts’ in the respect that they don’t believe in a progressive weakening of the ability of the state to provide where required. Against that is Cullen’s economic philosophy Tane outlined above.
The two are not irreconcilable. It’s your shortcoming that you lack the ability to see that (I’m sure your response to this will illustrate that clearly, specious rhetoric about ‘waiting nine years’ notwithstanding), so expecting an admission based abon your flaws is not a little bit unreasonable.
The question about a flase dichotomy? It’s well documented (i.e use a dictionary) and I’m not wasting my time researching for you. Are you wearing ignorance as a wee badge of pride?
I think the Labour strategists have done a wonderful job of spinning the flip-flop line – again, it’s all about perception, not reality.
I compare HC’s attitude to Key over the tour with HC’s track record in earlier Labour govts particularly in terms of asset sales. It’s remarbable that National hasn’t tried to turn the heat on HC given the consistent line of attack on Key and National. Add to that the barbs about National’s front row when Labour’s core four are even older and more institutionalised!
As for Cullen’s flip flop, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t an election bribe given Cullen’s philosophical opposition and the timing of them. If it wasn’t a bribe, why not wait until 1 April when every other tax change is planned? At the time the changes were announced, there was no crisis so the timing was purely about maximising votes.
Having said all that, I think the commitment to policies is less important under MMP than it was under FPP. Commitment to bottom lines is most likely more helpful to voters.
Much of the debate here gets polarised along Labour/National lines which is less relevant in an MMP environment.
Daveski, you could try and run the line that it’s a flip-flop that Labour isn’t selling assetts, but why stop there? Why not say they’re flip-flopping because in 1939 they put New Zealand in a state of Total War production? They sure didn’t do that this time. We haven’t even declared war on Germany! Flip-Flop!
“ At the time the changes were announced, there was no crisis so the timing was purely about maximising votes.”
I could maybe agree with you there – the specific timing of the cut was most likely to make it take effect before the election, but we’re talking here about a few months. At least you’re conceding that that’s not why they had the tax cut in the first place, only that the timing was pushed forward a bit.
vto,
Sad, really the baiting. John Key’s lies are enough for me. Lying about his career timeline trying to disconnect him from Andrew krieger and his NZ dollar raid, about his involvement with the LTCM scandal and his ice little business with subprime derivatives, his shares and his policies.
Are you perhaps a closet case masochist and do you like being abused with lies and dishonesty? Someone lies to me and he’s out. You go and hug your banking scum mate and enjoy his abusive lying.
So far I’ve only been able to find a commitment for upto 150 billion and John Key just wants to tripple that to 450 billion.
Randal,
Just joshing mate, I think your comments are generaly hilarious and to the point.
labour= I block of cheese now
national= 1/2 block of cheese maybe in 2010
what about the non cheeze eaters
what do they get
and when do they get it?
MP – my point was that events in 1981 were used in an attempt to damage Key yet more recent events that involved HC doing things diametrically opposed to her current position have been overlooked.
In terms of the tax cuts, I expect that Cullen was still opposed to them based on his dogmatic principles but was overruled by those worried about the election.
Trying to be constructive here – Labour fairly can be acknowledged as being a safe pair of hands over the last 9 years although there is a debate about whether they could have been expected to have done more.
So the question has to be why is Labour struggling to get re-elected particularly when I agree that National hasn’t put a compelling case for election.
I wonder whether the attacks on the flip-flops are actually counter productive in the sense that most of the flip-flops are things that the general punter supports??
It will be interesting to see how the next debates pan out given that Labour definitely under-estimated Key’s ability to compete. I would expect the flip-flops to be a line of attack and will be interested to see how Key responds.
Economy over the worst: Cullen – NZ Herald. 12 Sep 2008
Labour has good tax cuts, they are powerful. National tax cuts are bad – I’m getting how this works.
Cullen is just a talking head isn’t he, there are the frequent sharp quips from this man but he has no idea what is going on. He is, as he said himself, out of his depth.
I don’t think I want to be paid in cheese anymore randal.
It’s more than I can eat and stay in good health, no-one accepts it as currency, the house is getting overrun with rodents and the bank won’t let me store it there.
Gonna be a stinky summer if this goes on much longer.
Daveski: Incorrect. Cullen stated the rationale for when tax-cuts were appropriate a long time ago. I can’t remember the exact list or a link (and have no time to locate them). But they went like this
1. Get government debt down to an acceptable level. In 1999 it was something like 37% of government revenue mostly from stuff carried from muldoon in the early 80′s. Now it is about 17% and is operational rather than long-term.
2. Fund the forward obligations of current tax payers. ie fund the superannuation bulge that really kicking in between 2020 and 2050. That is partially done by the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver. However the Nay’s now wish to plunder then destroy both.
3. Start putting in the physical infrastructure that had been deferred since the late 1970′s. This is partially done and more is underway. Currently the Nay’s appear to want to defer most of this until they have a chance to shift the projects to PPP and make the public part as plunder from the Cullen fund.
4. Stop wasting people in unemployment. Train them so they can be employed and then make sure the economy is able to employ them. ie Upgrade our human infrstructure.
Quite simply the morons calling for a tax-cut are short-term idiots who are trying to throw debt onto their children. They haven’t understood or more likely choose not to understand what has been going on in the government for the last 9 years. What they want is consumption now rather then building a sound economy.
The Nay’s are pandering to that by feeding them carefully selected numbers from the books and stats.
Tane,
G, burt. As usual you leave out the key qualifier:
“in today’s circumstances’
But I’m guessing that kind of subtelty is beyond people like you who think the answer to any question, in any circumstances, is sweeping tax cuts across the board.
2005 called – asked if you could pass on a message to Helen about her pathetic attempt to suggest Brash didn’t want anyone to own a house.
LP Happy to agree to the fact that Cullen did propose some tests. However, the substantive point I made in my post was the timing which undermines the constructive case.
Why else were the tax cuts scheduled for 1 October? In fact, the other two cuts are scheduled for 1 April … just not the first one.
Cullen seems hell bent on not being a populist so the decision I suspect seems to have forced on him. You may be able to comment further.
felix – the bastards are paying me in stilton. If this goes on any longer I’m off to aus.
Daveski – the attacks over the flip-flops are useful especially when you see what follows them. Key hates WfF, then professes to like it, then acts to negate it. The flip-flops are all populist ones (don’t scare the horses) but underlying that has to be a suspicion that they are ones of convenience, not resolution, and will easily be forgotten out of some future percieved necessity.
Why is Labour doing badly? A few scandals involving ministers, interspersed with some dedicated research into the performace of the public sector helped to create a perception of the government that isn’t effective, and National’s spin was set to capitalise on that – well they would be since it was clearly the National Paty digging all the stories up. And so they should – just interesting that when Labour does the same, it’s noted that the information came from Labour, thus somewhat negating the attacks. There’s a myriad of small things that have added up to a medium ‘mood for change’. Labour’s support has not diminished a great deal, but National’s has coalesced. If National’s policy was as good as their spin they’d probably easily get a majority, but behind the slick media manipulation and effective attack tactics lies some pure idiocy. Can research programmes? Remove incentives for reform in prisons? $50 rape/murder levies? They’re probably lucky their spin has done as well as it has – I just hope people see that lack of substance before it’s too late.
Burt – find me someone in a similar position who did predict the recent economic troubles. Good luck with that.
MP – a fair and reasonable analysis for the part. I would add the *perception* that Labour has lost touch and to an extent I think it is true. It was fascinating to see some constructive criticism around HC’s performance in the debate here for example.
As I’ve noted more than once, I think there is post-Brash a much greater similarity between National and Labour – including some of the flip-flops.
But the attacks on Key have been signalled for some time (SP created the template) but they don’t seem to have gained any traction, at least not yet.
Matthew: “The question about a flase dichotomy? It’s well documented (i.e use a dictionary)”
First you wanted me “to conceed a false dishotomy,” Now it’s “a flase dichotomy?”… and you want ME to use a dictionary?!
I couldn’t make up this stuff!
Okay, so when National adopts Labour policy it’s a flip-flop, but when your lot do it it’s a-okay. When National wants to give us a tax cut it’s irresponsible and inflationary and it’s gonna cost jobs on the frontline — goodbye doctors, nurses, teachers and cops! But when Labour gives us a tax cut “it’s responding sensibly to circumstances.”
I honestly couldn’t make up this stuff!!
Well done, you’re picking up spelling mistakes as if they are important. I guess it’s one way to deflect attention away from the fact that you’re having trouble understanding what I was getting at, but you could eat a little humble pie and admit it – I’d be happy to help you out there. Otherwise you’ll actually answer the point in your next post, instead of trying to divert. I won’t be holding my breath!
If you think a tax cut is for one reason and one reason alone, then I can see how you’d reach your conclusion. In doing so, you’re admitting that “Labour believes in tax cuts”, I guess, very kind of you. Even if you’ve got it somewhere between backward and reality.
No, I honestly don’t think you could. I could make up everything you say, though, with an absolute minimum of fuss. I hope Lynn programmes a troll to do it as he’s been threatening, I reckon it could be better than debating with the real thing!
[lprent: I will, I will. After the election and probably before xmas. I'll trial with a wingnut and then the same with (bugger can't remember the name) and left wing troll. If they pass acceptance testing, I'll try some blind trials with an IP relay]
“First you wanted me “to conceed a false dishotomy,’ Now it’s “a flase dichotomy?’ and you want ME to use a dictionary?!”
But G, you have been using a dictionary – online ones and several of them. And even then it’s taken you bloody ages to realise you were looking for the wrong word.
The funny thing is you think no-one knows.
Lynn.
It’s wingnuts vs moonbats I think.
Daveski: I suspect that many politicians in labour would have preferred them last year in 2007 or early in 2008. However the debt only crawled down to the acceptable target rate towards the mid-end of 2007.
They were announced in this years budget, and typically pay systems require 6 months to get the changes in place – it takes that long to get everything updated. Thats why it was October. Of course that was political as well…
The point I’m making is that Cullen was doing the fiscally responsible thing based on plans made before the election in 1999. The Nay’s look extremely fiscally irresponsible, especially in their plan to plunder the future returns of my superannuation savings with both the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver to pay for taxcuts.
I won the English prize at school, Felix, I’m pretty good at spelling. Though I do admit to the odd error, which I usually spot on the printed read and unfortunately can no longer correct (what happened to the edit function Sysop?).
But you have to admit, it’s pretty funny that Matt was telling me to examine a dictionary and couldn’t spell his own sentence. Twice.
Nice one though guys on The Double Standard: Labour tax cuts good; National tax cuts bad. Hilarious.
[BTW, there was no 'false dichotomy' in my statement -- he's completely misused it]
“The Nay’s look extremely fiscally irresponsible, especially in their plan to plunder the future returns of my superannuation savings with… the Cullen fund…”
Ha! You guys are really cracking me up these days!
Market meltdown costs Cullen Fund $881m
I say give it to me now, you prick, and let ME decide how to plan for my retirement.
Oh G, G, G – There is nothing more I would like to see than you be given your own money to fuck up with but alas we live in a society that is designed to save even idiots like yourself from yourselves…
Is it just me or is the joy one would get from watching stupid libertarians (if I may indulge in tautology) get devoured in a free market the only arguable case for libertarianism?
G: You’d just waste it speculating on something and then expect me to pay for your wastral ways. I’ve seen your type of idiot investing before.
Slightly less than 5% loss on the Cullen is very good in the current market. That is pretty much the same as the NZX and a lot less of a loss than the US/UK and almost everywhere else. I haven’t been monitoring because I dropped out to wait out the recession a while ago. The speculators were getting over-excited yet again….
I’d expect that they will take some more losses over the next 6 months, but it sounds like they’ve been investing the money in the right types of companies. They should also be able to pick up some useful stakes now that the prices have fropped.
g…calm down or they will come and take you away!
g..just been going over your other stuff and the indications are delusions of grandeur with incipient megalomania. just dont let it show in public eh…for your own benefit like.
randal why is your picture a gladiator?
Nosiness leads to the same sort of mental problems that g suffers from.
Nosiness is socialism’s middle name, randal little-letters — you guys simply kant keep those sticky beaks out of other people’s business.
BTW, when Labour got in back in ’99 I invested my savings in gold at a tad under $3, liquidated when it hit $9.50 in July and bought a shit-load of property at really low prices. I could retire but I like my job too much.
G – in my experience there are no rich libertarians. Only libertarians who think the reason they’re not rich has something to do with the government…
For any libertarians (other than G) reading this comment – some advice:
You’re not rich because you are stupid and unpleasant to be around. Neither the government or the Zionist conspiracy have anything to do with it.