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!
Gosh. That’s exactly the same theme of the John versus John TV ad I saw from the Labour Party just a minute ago.
Good on you for authorising it appropriately SP. I realise you’ve gone with black and white to keep costs down, but it’s unfortunate that the colours you’ve used make it look like an NZ First pamphlet.
At least that was my initial impression.
it might look like somebody elses poster but there is no mistaking the dick cheny sneer
TE: Everyone should highlight the things that others are good at.
I’m good at programming. John Key is good at flip-flopping.
He does feel a bit like a classic black and white portrait of a politician – old school style. Good smile, likeable, two-faced, and with a limited vision and understanding.
But maybe that is just the effect of having advice from Crosby-Textor. They like cartoons for candidates.
So maybe the colours are appropriate for both politicians, both Winston and John Key. I have problems telling them apart.
captcha: wreck because
ha ha. well the poster says it all…
It’d hold up a bit better if the quotes allegedly said by Key were referenced (small print in the corner somewhere would do).
Agreed with Rex – that’s actually the strength of the similar Labour TV spots for me, the fact that every single “he said this” is referenced for all to see.
boring
Yawn.
lprent
There is a quick cheat you can use to tell them apart. One is loved and supported by Labour irrespective of what he does and the other is denigrated by Labour irrespective of what he does.
Labour’s coilition partner New Zealand First Winston Peters has put forward a radical proposal to float shares in Kiwibank. Is this Labour policy?
[lprent: Don't be silly. Tell me does the party you support consist completely of idiot trolls, just because you are one. Read the About and the Policy at the top of the page. It usually pays to look at the local policy and comments before getting moderated for stupidity.]
ooh look, burt made his comment again.
Funny how he spins on and on and on about two ticks long enough to curdle water, but still doesn’t understand that in MMP big parties will have coalition agreements with small parties. And that this will involve compromise, (ooh dirty word. Impure. Unclean. Bring out your dead.), or that the parties in coalition are in tactical/strategic arrangements, not moral or even, necessarily, ideological ones.
I actually think that he feels that if it wasn’t for the two ticks strategy of the big parties, ACT would be getting enough votes to have their policies taken seriously. He just can’t accept that no one likes ACT’s policy program. That can’t be it, it’s all the fault of those darstardly two tickers and the unions. Always the bloody unions. Every comment is a retrospective of his comments past.
burt: I’m a strong Labour supporter. I’ve never said a good word about either national or NZF (that I can remember).
Of course I also have the same opinion about the strange obsession that some of the politically naive of the right have with assuming that different parties of a coalition have the same policies. It speaks of a type of simple minded view of the world that must be hard to carry off. Reality, especially political reality, must be very hard for you to endure. It is no wonder that that most on the right seem to have problem with MMP. It makes things too complex for their simple minds.
Tell me, does your opinion also apply to the Bolger/Winston coalitions of the past?
(Man you left yourself wide open for that)
BTW: anyone notice that randal and d4j are in agreement. Now that is scary.
BTW: anyone notice that randal and d4j are in agreement. Now that is scary.
More than scary – isn’t it one of the portents of the apocalypse?
lprent
As Winston was ex-National the coalitions with National didn’t register as ‘unlikely’ to me then as it would now with the passage of time allowing more specialisation of the NZ1 brand. I’ve never been a big Winston supporter, I’ll be honest.
Additionally Bolger never defended Winston through a period of parliamentary privilege censure to keep his happy face on for the election.
Pascal’s bookie
You listen to what I say, I’m flattered.
so what?
There is some great entertainment coming out of all this, and some very pithy sayings. “Tranzrail eyes” was fantastic. And “Don’t let the Green-eyed Labour Monster loose on the streets” was almost as good.
I’m hoping for more – there’s still weeks to go!
Speaking of flip-flopping, let’s have a squiz at the all-time biggest election flip-flop ever — tax cuts:
Helen: “Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of visionless and intellectually bankrupt people.’
Helen again: “We are not prepared to lash out with across the board tax cuts which would throw New Zealand back into debt, increase mortgage rates, and cut important public services.’
Cullen: “We just don’t believe in tax cuts – it’s against our fundamental philosophy – after all we are socialists and proud of it.’
Cullen again: “So, when anyone promises tax cuts, you need to read their lips carefully, because what they are actually saying is longer waiting times for health care, longer queues for public services, lower pensions, fewer police and so on.”
Nine years — nine freaking years without a tax cut. But when it looks like this one’s going to be all about tax cuts…
G,
Yep, if National gets in the upper crust will get their tax cuts while the mugs will fork out for the almost half trillion NZ dollars John Key wants in place to help his banking buddies.
Funny how bankers embrace Capitalism when it’s them scamming the suckers and cry for Socialism when their scams fall flat and they need to bailed out.
r0b,
Yep, I thought it was scary too. LOL
ev…justa cosmic coincidence or if one was to get suspicious ummmmmmmmmmm and just a note to all you infantilised co dependents I dont do co-dependency or fuzzy wuzzy feelgoods.
Anyone here have the integrity to admit Labour has flip-flopped on tax cuts…?
Trav,
Would they be the same wholesale interbank deposits that Cullen has now decided to include in the current scheme?
You missed a trick there, when you didn’t ‘out’ him as being part of the global money-master conspiracy… you’re slipp(ery?)ing.
—
Seriously though, I personally don’t like the scheme at all. But we live in an interdependant world, and if we don’t commit to a course of action, EVERYONE loses out – small businesses, mortgage holders, consumers, mum-and-dad investors, so on and so forth. One area where you and I have always been in agreement (I think) is that, going forward, there needs to be a serious review of how banks operate.
“Anyone here have the integrity to admit Labour has flip-flopped on tax cuts ?”
You’re spoiling for a fight aren’t you, wee fella? Anyone have the integrity to conceed to a false dishotomy? .
This thread is about flip-flopping on policy, Matthew — care to concede Labour has flip-flopped on what was the biggest political issue prior to the meltdown?
And “conceed (sic) to a false” what?
nah..this thread is about john keys fundamental flaws…dishonesty and flip flopping. so tell me g what do you think about privatising ACC and selling kiwibank or do you prefer to remain in the land of projected blank pottlekettles?
G – I’d like to respond to your post on whether Labour have flip flopped on tax – after you provide the links to the full unedited source to your posted quotes. I believe you are trying to deceive us in providing selected/edited quotes out of context.
G
Yes they sure have flip-flopped. They were always going to. Labour stupidly painted themselves into a corner on this one. If thresholds don’t adjust and earning inflate over time more and more people are paying rich prick thresholds. It’s not rocket science.
Cullen also laid out the four way test, another great flip-flop. Dr Cullen told us how prudent it was to stick to these basic principles. Then he ignored that when polling reality gave his belligerence a kick in the teeth. Not be outdone on just ignoring the 4 way test to win this election he threw caution to the wind completely and legislated to forget about his four way test completely for the next 3 years.
burt..pottle..kettle…blank..project.
G, burt. As usual you leave out the key qualifier:
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.
randal
I just think the ‘flip flop’ line is a stupid one to run in a campaign for any party that has build a solid history of such behaviour. It’s pointing a gun at your own head, the public are not completely stupid. It’s not as black and white as Steve P. wants us to think it is.
and i am still waiting to hear from dad4justice – a few days ago he was claiming Labour would slide to 25% in the polls on the back some immigration scandal. 24 hours later we all found out that the chinese gentleman concerned met 3 times with John Key, donated $5K to National, and had Patsy Wong write a letter of support. How does it feel to such a prat? I think d4j you may be one of those who wears swimming trunks in the bath to stop themselves looking down on the unemployed.
Tane
Hello again. It’s been awhile. Labour just did tax cuts across the board, why is across the board tax cuts suddenly about me?
I’ve been a big advocate on this blog for regularly reviewed thresholds, seems Cullen has partially caught up with my thinking that they need regular adjustment. The difference is I think policy should set the thresholds as a percentage of earners and thresholds should be tweaked to maintain integrity of the policy settings on an annual basis.
Dr. Cullen seems to think that he can predict the economy 3 years into the future and lays them out. How will his 4 way test be applied Tane? Or is that something we don’t talk about these days?
Hi burt. It has indeed. I’ve been rather busy with work and with helping the real life campaign, so the blog’s kind of taken a back seat.
My point is that Labour’s policy has always been to build surpluses in the good times to allow for deficits in the bad times. Cullen’s paid down our debt and put us in a good position to handle deficits without having to slash services, cut benefits and reduce wages – a course of action that we know from experience would only drive the country even further into recession.
I’m not saying I agree with everything Cullen and Labour do. I’m just saying there’s a logic to their surpluses and it’s the same logic that applies to their tax cut package. The supposedly contradictory quotes from your mate aren’t contradictory at all.
Appleboy, that quote from Cullen, “We just don’t believe in tax cuts – it’s against our fundamental philosophy – after all we are socialists and proud of it” was a direct lift from his inaugural budget speech in ’99, and cannot be taken out of context.
The others are all well documented but I’m not wasting my time searching for them. I don’t care if you concede the point or not — 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.
To point fingers at the opposition and cry “flip-flop” is hypocritical, plain and simple, and the fact that none of you socialists are willing to concede it exposes your lack of integrity.
Tane
That surplus is stored in the form of lower debt.I have no argument with that, sadly though the lack of productive developments created by the surplus has left us poorly prepared. Now we need to borrow (remember that incredibly expensive thing we must not do) to fund tax cuts. A growing economy also produces opportunity to repay debt, without making the people poor to do it.
I’ll tell ya what. In late 2009 the 2008 tax year stats will be available. I’ll wager a beer that over 20% of workers (employed people who paid tax – not working age people) have been classified as rich under the Labour-led govt before tax cuts were finally given. This is the result of the ‘top 5%’ tax policy.
(can we remember to check this late 2009?)
Teachers being taxed as rich bastards was not a good look for the govt, Labour should have seen that coming and made inflation adjustments in 2005. It was a stupid mistake for Labour to take such a principled stand that tax cuts were bad when it was bloody obvious something had to change soon.
Tane
20% is my lower prediction from way back here.
burt on thresholds at the standard