A pattern of (mis)behaviour

Written By: - Date published: 1:41 pm, October 28th, 2008 - 87 comments
Categories: election 2008, john key - Tags:

Over this year, we’ve seen John Key caught out lying on a number of occasions – the excuses for his “we would love to see wages drop” quote, his shares, numerous instances in the debate and other interviews. He has said things like ‘I’ve aways believed in climate change‘ when he had previously claimed to be ‘somewhat suspicious‘ of it. We’ve seen a number of instances of Key being caught in a lie on camera and getting that rabbit-in-the-headlights look that Audrey Young calls his Tranzrail eyes. Now, here’s another three times Key has overstated the truth in an effort to impress us, which our reader ‘Shonkey’ has uncovered:

– the claim on his parliamentary biography that he was on the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Ferderal Reserve of New York from 1999 to 2001. The FEC’s annual reports show that he was appointed for a three year term from 2000 to 2003 but quit the FEC in March 2001, and so was on the committee for 15 months, not three years. He would have attended at most 11 meetings.

– the idea in his Herald profile that he was global head of forex for most of his five years at Merrill Lynch in London. In fact it appears from trade press reports that he only held that position for about 2 1/2 years (1998-mid 2000) one of a string of global heads at Merrill that never quite managed to get it right as Euromoney reports.

– and one I find the most distasteful of all, trading off the tragedies of two Merrill families for political aggrandisement. In a 2003 debate on the Border Security Bill, Key told Parliament that on September 11, 2001

my boss, Michael Packer, died. He was giving a speech on the 108th floor, at Windows on the World. He perished with another two employees from Merrill Lynch, both of whom worked for me and whom I had recruited from the private sector.

Packer probably was the now Australian-domiciled Key’s boss in e-commerce but he couldn’t have had anything to do with hiring the other two Merrill employees killed on 9/11, and probably had nothing to do with them at all. One was 26-year-old Robert McIlvaine, hired only in July 2001 for New York based communications jobs (Key’s already in Australia by then); the other was David Brady, a 16-year veteran at Merrill and a New York based private client advisor who looked after about 150 wealthy families. Key had barely made his first forex trade in 1985, he didn’t start with Merrill until 1995, and he’s claiming he hired this guy.

These are not isolated cases. This is a pattern of behaviour; an instinct to lie, exaggerate and obfuscate to mislead people, say what his audience wants to hear, and cover his arse.

[Update: insider points out that Key claims he was at the FEC from 1999 to 2001, yet the FEC says he didn’t start until 2000. Just another of those inconsistencies that raises questions about Key’s basic honesty]

87 comments on “A pattern of (mis)behaviour ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Daveo 1
    28 October 2008 at 1:57 pm

    That 9/11 lie is unbelievable. What a scumbag.

  2. higherstandard 2
    28 October 2008 at 1:57 pm

    “This is a pattern of behaviour; an instinct to lie, exaggerate and obfuscate to mislead people, say what his audience wants to hear.”

    Gosh if you added in Winstonesque delusions of grandeur to that list you could be talking about yourself.

  3. Robinsod 3
    28 October 2008 at 1:59 pm

    The CV stuff? Meh. Lots of people exaggerate a bit on their CVs. The 9/11 stuff? That’s a very big story…

  4. Tane 4
    28 October 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Once again, higherstandard, you’re descending into abuse when your mates in the National Party are caught engaged in dodgy behaviour.

    What happened to you man? You used to be pretty reasonable.

  5. Matthew Pilott 5
    28 October 2008 at 2:03 pm

    “Gosh if you added in Winstonesque delusions of grandeur to that list you could be talking about yourself.”

    At what stage did you give up and decide to be a grumpy old git instead of contributing? Sometime in the last four months, I’m picking. It was fairly gradual, just a few worthless comments here and there, but that’s all I see now.

    If the original intelligent HS is still out there, I’m sure you can let the folks at this site know that some irritable waste of space has stolen your pseudonym.

  6. insider 6
    28 October 2008 at 2:03 pm

    “Packer probably was the now Australian-domiciled Key’s boss in e-commerce but I doubt he had anything to do with the other two Merrill employees killed on 9/11.”

    So you don’t know? and you call him a liar based on that overwhelming guess….

    The internal polling must be looking really bad.

  7. Matthew Pilott 7
    28 October 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Tane – check the old IP. Surely it can’t be the same person… Interesting that we both chose that comment to respond to in that fashion. I suppose it stood out as being worse than normal (though becoming normal in of itself, for HS).

  8. Shonkey 8
    28 October 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Robinsod, sure lots of people exaggerate on their CVs but they’re not the people I hire and they are definitely not the people I want running the country.

  9. Robinsod 9
    28 October 2008 at 2:06 pm

    HS – what part of the 9/11 story isn’t proven? I’ve googled Merrill Lynch just to make sure Key wasn’t talking about anyone else and came up with the names of only the three mentioned:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_Sept_15/ai_78303891

  10. Steve Pierson 10
    28 October 2008 at 2:06 pm

    insider. Shonkey shows it’s impossible that he had anything to do with hiring these two guys who worked in totally different parts of ML than he did. I will strengthen the language

  11. higherstandard 11
    28 October 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Tane MP

    Since this blog descended into a vehicle for Clinton’s breathless exposes which expose nothing apart from his own bigoted bias.

  12. Tane 12
    28 October 2008 at 2:07 pm

    “Packer probably was the now Australian-domiciled Key’s boss in e-commerce but I doubt he had anything to do with the other two Merrill employees killed on 9/11.’

    So you don’t know? and you call him a liar based on that overwhelming guess .

    To be fair it looks like he’s giving John the benefit of the doubt on this one. It’s Key’s relationship to the other two employees Shonkey’s questioning.

  13. Julie 13
    28 October 2008 at 2:07 pm

    insider, did you bother to read the rest of the post that explained why it seemed incredibly unlikely that Key had hired those two people? Sheesh, simple reading comprehension!

    This whole thing is pretty awful. I mean I thought he was a muddle, but then I’m never going to vote National so I figured I thought that at least partly because I am biased. But this is something else.

  14. Quoth the Raven 14
    28 October 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Eve will love this. I say this is Evesque.

  15. Matthew Pilott 15
    28 October 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Insider, that comment makes it very clear you either didn’t read the post properly, or failed to understand what it was saying.

  16. insider 16
    28 October 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Oh and Shonkey can’t read or add. It says on his bio (unless it has been changed) “Member, Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 1999-2001” which is quite a bit different from claiming he was on it for three years.

    NCEA Comprehension grade: Not achieved

    Keep scraping, you’ll be through the barrel floor very soon.

  17. Matthew Pilott 17
    28 October 2008 at 2:14 pm

    “Since this blog descended into a vehicle for Clinton’s breathless exposes which expose nothing apart from his own bigoted bias”

    Oh, that right, HS? Just quietly, then, why don’t you go away instead of moaning? This site has hit #2 in the NZ political blog rankings, so it seems few, if any, agree with you. That’s not a reson in of itself for you to cease commenting here, but if the best you can do to critique it is to make up silly pretentious comments like “Winstonesque delusions of grandeur” then you’re probably out of your league. If these ‘exposes’ are so biased, why haven’t you the intelligence and wit to show others that?

  18. Steve Pierson 18
    28 October 2008 at 2:17 pm

    HS. there’s a good corner here if you want to go have a cry in it.

    I wouldn’t describe my writing style as breathless, especially when, as with these recent four posts, it’s a story I’m breaking. I’m using restrained language and a plodding, point by point style.

    Since Saturday I have written only three posts on the shareholdings, this one on Key’s other lies, and five on other topics. But the fact that you seem so keen, to the point of losing your dignity, for me to stop writing about these issues makes me think you’re worried that these things will hurt National.

  19. Matthew Pilott 19
    28 October 2008 at 2:18 pm

    “1999-2001″ which is quite a bit different from claiming he was on it for three years”

    1999 – one year
    2000 – one year
    2001 – one year

    One year + One year + One year

    =

    Three year!

    Let’s not even ask why Key’s dates are different to those on the FEC reports… His memory just ain’t up to much.

  20. IrishBill 20
    28 October 2008 at 2:18 pm

    On the off chance Key was talking about two other Merrill Lynch employees I had a quick check of how many died during 9/11 and came up with only the three mentioned.

  21. Dom 21
    28 October 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Of all this the David Brady lie looks most compromising…I echo the other sentiments – making hay out of 9/11 is a bad look…

  22. Shonkey 22
    28 October 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Insider, Key wasn’t on the FEC in 1999. The FEC membership committee meets in the September of each year to decide who it will invite to replace retiring or resigning members. Key was one of those invited in 1999 and I certainly acknowledge it was a prestigious appointment. Invitations are to invidividuals, not institutions, and Key was one of the few Merrill’s ever had.

    His term on the FEC was meant to be from 2000 to 2003. So I agree this stretching of the truth isn’t quite as bad as the 9/11 stuff but it’s indicative of his predilection to exaggerate. He was on the FEC for 15 months, not three years, and quit in early 2001 about the time he left for Sydney.

    He’d already been replaced as global head of forex by mid 2000, according to trade press reports (which reports the appointment of his successor Keith Jacobson in July 2000)

  23. insider 23
    28 October 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Steve

    “Shonkey shows it’s impossible that he had anything to do with hiring these two guys who worked in totally different parts of ML than he did. ”

    That’s a big call. You or Shonkey ever worked for ML? DO you know for certain what their hiring practices were? Can you give a cast iron guarantee he had no role whatsoever in approving their appointment to roles? If you can’t, then you are unqualified to call these lies. Feel free to question their credibility, but recognise that you do so from a position of relative ignorance. I’ve already shown one of your interpretations is due to a basic lack of maths.

  24. Steve Pierson 24
    28 October 2008 at 2:24 pm

    insider. So Key is claiming to have started at the FEC in 1999 when the FEC says he didn’t start until 2000?

    maybe I should add that as an update.

    It’s these constant variances between Key’s statements and the facts that give weight to the idea he is a reflexive liar.

  25. Steve Pierson 25
    28 October 2008 at 2:26 pm

    insider. He can’t have hired a guy who was at ML before him – that’s physics. And since he was in Sydney working in Forex, it is unbelievable that he would have hired a New York comms guy

  26. Matthew Pilott 26
    28 October 2008 at 2:26 pm

    “That’s a big call.

    No it’s not, learn to read. One guy worked for ML for about 10 years before Key started, and the other started after Key had left for Australia. What about those claims is difficult for you to understand? Your ‘maths’ on the other point isn’t exactly going to earn you any credits, sorry.

  27. Matthew Pilott 27
    28 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

    “ So Key is claiming to have started at the FEC in 1999 when the FEC says he didn’t start until 2000?

    maybe I should add that as an update. ”

    SP – look in 2000. His bio says 1999-2001.

  28. insider 28
    28 October 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Steve

    Lots of people could be involved in an employment decision, particularly in anal US multinationals. Hell, I’ve been amazed at some in my own career. I agree it sounds unlikely but the fact is, you actually don’t know. You are guessing. Why not admit it?

    Shonkey

    Where has Key said he served for 3 years? It seems only you and Steve think he did.

  29. Daveski 29
    28 October 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Many months ago, SP’s single line of attack was “show us your policy”.

    The closer the election gets, the greater the likelihood of National getting elected, the more that SP’s line of attack has been personalised on Key.

    It echoes (surprise, surprise) Helen’s petulant outbursts directed at Key after the first leaders debate.

    Actually, I think the right represented here are doing you a favour – the personal lines of attack aren’t working (check out the polls). Of course, the plebs here are delighting in the bread and circuses you’re providing – you’re preaching to the converted.

    The MSM isn’t interested (I know, only the Standard gets it, the rest is a media conspiracy). Strange, when the Brethren story broke last year the media was all over it because it was an issue.

    It’s not working

  30. ghostwhowalks 30
    28 October 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Whats prestigious about the FEC??

    All the major players in wall street have a representative, including the foreign ones. Its an ex officio appointment for most of them, Id doubt they even turned up for meetings but go the agenda and minutes via email

  31. insider 31
    28 October 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Steve

    Re basic honesty, why have you not updated this misleading statement yet managed to put in an update referencing it:

    “the claim on his parliamentary biography that he was on the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Ferderal Reserve of New York for three years.”

  32. higherstandard 32
    28 October 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Matty calm down young man.

    “This site has hit #2 in the NZ political blog rankings, so it seems few, if any, agree with you. ”

    Whoopee most people in NZ wouldn’t have a clue this blog exists let alone take it seriously.

    “That’s not a reason in of itself for you to cease commenting here”

    Correct.

    “but if the best you can do to critique it is to make up silly pretentious comments like “Winstonesque delusions of grandeur’ then you’re probably out of your league.”

    Well if as I suspect the league is made up mostly of just out of university or still studying students, the odd crackpot and a sprinkling of unionists – you’re right I am out of my league.

    Fortunately there are also some very astute and considered people commenting as well – if this was mixed in with some posts that were more than “here’s the latest poll it looks good for the left” and “John Key and National are evil ” the blog would be al the better for it. I suspect you can’t see it but this blog is becoming a mirror image of Whaleoil.

  33. Sarah 33
    28 October 2008 at 2:41 pm

    I suppose I should thank Clinton — I don’t think I could get a better laugh anywhere else. Talk about bigoted. I can smell the red on his breath a mile away.

    Don’t worry HS, these far-left diotribes on Key aren’t really accomplishing anything. The media seem to have realised that Clinton is as reliable as a labour party press announcement. Not one outlet picked up his story on the fletcher challenge shares, despite all his hard work digging up Key’s past. What a shame.

  34. travellerev 34
    28 October 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Steve,

    Added to that this is the only speech (save American new Zealand audience) in which he links himself to Wall street by stating that he both worked and lived in New York during the six years of his tenure with Merrill Lynch. Signed sealed and delivered.

    Funny how that little tit bit does not show up in any of his news paper interviews eh?

    Also at the same time he heads Forex he also manages the debt (bonds and derivatives) department. Which got Merrill Lynch up shit creek without a peddle.

    So after leaving the Bankers Trust went bust in 1995 after they were exposed as dodgy derivatives scheisters John Key leaves for Merrill Lynch to start as what? Say after me: The managing director for the Bonds and Derivatives.

    So it turns out that while he is promoting himself as a Forex trader his main function at Merrill Lynch was that of the bond and derivative development locking him into the subprime crisis and the collapse of the entire financial system.

    And now I know why he wasn’t fired together with the other Forex managers in 1998.

    In 1997 Merrill Lynch expanded its involvement with the Long Term Credit Management hedge fund or LTCM this Hedge fund collapsed spectacularly in 1998 leaving Merrill Lynch out of pocket for anywhere between $ 1 and 1.5 billion dollars.
    The fund had to be bailed out by the FRNY and was heavily involved with risky bets in the Asian financial Market and the Russian financial Russian market.

    Either John Key was called in when the fund began to go belly up to see what could be saved in which case this ties him to the fund that caused the collapse of both the Asian currencies and the Russian currency or he was asked to take the position of Global head of Forex to clean up the department after the bail out and to fire all these managers earning him the title the “smiling assassin.”

    If he was called in before August 1998 he was directly involved with the Collapse of the Russian economy (in which case I want to sue him because in that year the Netherlands lost their advertisement branch as the direct result of the collapse and we almost went bankrupt as a result of that) or he was hired after September 1998 and working in Bonds and Derivatives in which case ooh, about a couple of hundred thousand Kiwi’s who just lost all their savings in the subprime mortgage credit crunch that saw all these finance companies go belly up might want to give him a of their mind.

    Either way we can now be sure that John Key was connected to the development of the very trade that is now causing the collapse of the financial system.

    The idea that the subprime was only something of the last three years as propagated by JK himself who tells us that the products causing the subprime crisis were only developed in 2004-2005 is ludicrous. In 1997 Congress told Freddy mac and Fanny may to lend to every smuck no matter whether they could pay back their mortgage and Alan Greenspan’s easy credit and the final deregulation in November 1999 (when John Key ran the department of Debt (bonds and derivatives)) with the repeal of the Glass Steagall act so commercial and investment could merge enabling the biggest heist and transfer of wealth in human history.

    Wham bam thank you mam. the Bastard.

    Captcha: Shady 1903. When the Money trust bankers started to conspire to defraud the US people of the right to print their own money. That thing is scary

  35. Highbury Rd 35
    28 October 2008 at 2:43 pm

    IrishBill: Deleted and banned for two weeks for trolling under a series of pseudonyms.

    Tane: I’ll extend that to a life ban. He’s previously been banned under a different pseudonym for similar behaviour.

    [lprent: Good. He will be going straight to the anti-spam bot from here]

  36. higherstandard 36
    28 October 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Sarah

    In SP’s defence it is Green on his breath and it is encouraging to see someone so committed to their cause.

  37. Observer 37
    28 October 2008 at 2:47 pm

    If we are to trace the MsBehaviour of our politicians, then surely we have to include a look at Ms Clark’s. A series of forgeries (re paintings auctioned as genuine PM originals) would show a pattern of misbehaviour. Perhaps inconsistency regarding what a cabinet minister is fired for, as opposed to allowed to stand-down on fyull baubles, would suggest a pattern of inconsistency.

    Don’t worry. I don’t expect this to make it through to publication, I know valid criticism is a one way street here. I would like to know though, how it is you have time and funding to search old archives for this stuff, and why you regard ANYTHING on the internet as true – I don’t!

  38. ghostwhowalks 38
    28 October 2008 at 2:50 pm

    As I thought, it has up to 30 members,and terms are for 4 years

    This is from the FEC annual report.
    And lets not forget the NY Fed is really only a glorified Databank with some extra duties because of wall st

    In response to the results of the study, the Federal Reserve
    Bank of New York agreed to sponsor the establishment of
    a Foreign Exchange Committee. It was agreed that:
    â–  The Committee should consist of no more than thirty
    members.
    â–  Institutions participating in the Committee should be
    chosen in consideration of: a) their participation in the
    foreign exchange market here and b) the size and
    general importance of the institution. Selection of
    participants should remain flexible to reflect changes as
    they occur in the foreign exchange market.
    â–  Responsibility for choosing member institutions rests
    with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The
    Membership Subcommittee, chaired by a Federal Reserve
    Bank official, advises the Federal Reserve on
    membership issues.
    â–  The membership term is four calendar years. A member
    may be renominated for additional terms; however, an
    effort will be made to maximize participation in the
    Committee by institutions eligible for membership.
    â–  Members are chosen with regard to the firm for which
    they work, their job responsibilities within that firm, their
    market stature, and their ongoing role in the market.

    http://www.newyorkfed.org/FXC/annualreports/fxcar07.pdf

  39. Daveski 39
    28 October 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Mr Rd

    Ahh … sorry to talk facts, but before I made my comments I checked both Stuff and NZH.

    You illustrate my point. SP is playing to the fans here. Yep, you all think that JK is the Devil incarnate.

    It’s a deliberate ploy to play JK against Helen who can be trusted. Gee, where have we heard that before?

    We’re telling you that nobody outside of the Standard is not listening. And you don’t want to listen to us.

    [Highbury Road is a right-wing troll pretending to be a sycophantic leftie. He was previously banned for similar behaviour under a different pseudonym and is now also banned under this one.]

  40. Daveski 40
    28 October 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Not Green … watermelon pips 😉

  41. travellerev 41
    28 October 2008 at 2:54 pm

    QtR,

    I send Steve the link to the interview ages ago and I have linked to it several times here.

    Me thinks that Steve decided to check up on it and he just up picked on the 911 angle and I have to agree with him if JK lies about how he is closely connected to the 911 tragedy to gain political kudos than that is very uncool.

    He states that he worked and lived in NY so why does he not tell us so in say the NZH “unauthorised” biography and more why did the three journo’s not ask him about it. Wall street is after all another epicentre of financial power and he could have another big embellishment on his CV. BSD (Big Swinging Dick. LOL) on Wall street. Yet not a peep.

    He is a lying piece of shit and I’m well chaffed that Steve is going after him.

  42. Sarah 42
    28 October 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Is Highbury Rd actually serious?

    This story isn’t going to be all over the news, because all mainstream media outlets actually passed on the story. Something about a highly tenuous link. Clinton’s “hard work” was basically for nothing except the enjoyment of a few neo-liberals.

    HS – Sorry, my bad. I wouldn’t want to misrepresent him.

  43. travellerev 43
    28 October 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Gostwhowalks,

    According to the website there were only four upon invitation only advisors that period.
    Merrill Lynch,Citigroup,Lehman bros and OBSWahrburg. O oops all of them either bankrupt or teetering on the verge.

    By the way QtR

    I also send Steve the link to the Forex committee site months ago. and I also linked to it in comments here. And wow, I’ve got a word with my name in it “Evesque”.
    I’m sure it will many things to many people but I think it’s a compliment what ever way you look at it.
    That is awesome. I’m really proud now. Evesque, shit, that is just so cool. LOL.

  44. insider 44
    28 October 2008 at 3:06 pm

    IF you want to see how hard work really pays off, take a look at yesterday’s DomPost on Winston’s trusts again. It practically reprinted one of Farrar’s posts word for word.

  45. lprent 45
    28 October 2008 at 3:08 pm

    hs: There are quite a few things that are different between the bloated ones site and here. This one has comments that orders of magnitude better in numbers, size, and quality, the posts generally check facts or at least attempts to specify reliability, doesn’t invent ‘facts’ to fit pet theories, and doesn’t fudge their readership figures.

    More importantly we have the better commentators like insider (unlike the mindless drone Observer above) digging into the posts detail to look at veracity.

    Please, please don’t compare this site to Whale’s. It makes me feel upset to even have the comparison made. It must take Whale such a lot of effort to push his site so far down into the sewer. Think of all of the imagination that he displays in spinning no facts into an amazing theory, leaving all of that mundane checking of facts alone.

    Steve doesn’t do things that inspired (by what?) way. He boringly pores over dusty tomes and outdated software looking for a paper trail. Cross-checks with other sources, and finally produces a mundane theory. Definitley not on the bloated ones order of self-appreciation.

  46. Daveski 46
    28 October 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Now I look silly. A right-ish winger getting tripped up by a right wing troll.

    My comments now look rather silly but randal thinks that’s the cause all the time 🙂

    For what it’s worth, I support action against trolls of any flavour. There is robust debate here without the need to hide.

    Captcha – exposition truth!!!!!!

  47. Tane 47
    28 October 2008 at 3:10 pm

    No, Highbury Road isn’t serious. As I’ve noted above, Highbury Road is a right-wing troll we previously banned for similar behaviour.

  48. randal 48
    28 October 2008 at 3:11 pm

    “WE” dont think jk is the devil incarnate. :”WE” just think he is the head dork and New Zealand does not need a dork in charge now or ever!

  49. insider 49
    28 October 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Aww Lynn, i’m feeling all fuzzy inside now…. 🙂

  50. Dom 50
    28 October 2008 at 3:15 pm

    The discourse on this site is far more deep than Kiwiblog or (shudder) Whale. Most of the posts there constitute baying for blood or making vile, personal comments.

    And anyway, I can’t stomach the misogyny on either of those sites…or the homophobia.

  51. Robinsod 51
    28 October 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Hey insider – I see you are trying to misdirect. How about you explain how Key could have hired someone who had worked for Merrill Lynch since 1985…

    Oh and I see the debate speech is a prepared speech so the old “slip of the tongue” excuse won’t stand.

  52. Matthew Pilott 52
    28 October 2008 at 3:29 pm

    HS, what in my comment appeared to not be calm? Or did you feel you had to try and write some form of personal comment in there for some reason? In case you can’t see it, you’re becoming as bad as the most mindless trolls. You’ve got preconceptions about every post you read, and you already know what you’re going to write about every post before you comment. This much is clear in what you write. If there are a few good posts, why not read and try to comment intelligently on them? The comment regarding whaleoil isn’t worth addressing – that you say it is a perfect illustration of the above.

  53. randal 53
    28 October 2008 at 3:31 pm

    SP please define reflexive liar…sounds to me like a “jerk”!

  54. randal 54
    28 October 2008 at 3:35 pm

    daveski your comments are “rather silly” most of the time including saying that no one is listening to the Standard.
    If that were the case then why are you spending time here when according to you there is no need to?

  55. insider 55
    28 October 2008 at 3:35 pm

    sod

    Nope. Unless he hired him into a new role within ML

  56. Danny 56
    28 October 2008 at 3:37 pm

    The biggest load of bollocks was Key’s “I didn’t have a view on the Springbok tour”.

    Everyone had a view on the tour. Even people who were too young (or ‘in love’) at the time, subsequently formed views on the tour. And John Key claimed to have wanted to be PM from a young age!?

    That one, for me, was the first obvious big porkie-pie.

    My point is that it should make the list …

  57. Lampie 57
    28 October 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Can someone please expose this dork, John Wayne-Key to the media

  58. lprent 58
    28 October 2008 at 4:09 pm

    insider: 😈 damnit, you’re right – doesn’t fit with the BOFH image does it to implicitly or explicitly compliment a luser. Who knows, soon I’ll start cuddling rabbits rather than shooting them (and annoying my niece).

    However it was in a comment, rather than the bold and dark mode of the BOFH.

  59. travellerev 59
    28 October 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Daveski,

    The problem JK has is that he doesn’t have a story that adds up.
    He started with the “I was a banker and had some pretty senior positions.”
    And now that people are actually beginning to wonder who is JK and what are his credentials for governing this country he is forced to give more details and plump up his banking story in order to convince us he has what it takes. The problem for John Key is that the only place he has build up any credibility is the international investment banking world. So in order to convince the punters they had to make him mister macho man in the banking world and in doing so they gave details that prove very interesting.

    When I started researching John Key last year I was only in passing being able to connect him to Andrew Krieger but than I noticed a date change on his Wiki page, the date change? Instead of leaving Elders in 1987 it became 1988. See that triggered my curiosity.
    And then came the Sunday Star Times interview in which JK says I worked with Andrew Krieger although he could not remember whether he had traded for him during the attack in Autumn 1987 and another 5 months later he and his boss were very certain that he only worked with him after the attack in fact almost a whole year later in 1988. It just so happened that AK had left Bankers Trust in February 1988. You see his stories don’t add up.

    He does not talk about Wall street or about Bonds and Derivatives which if done with integrity can be an eminently honest job.

    Why is he so shifty about his career timeline and about his functions during that time and the places were he worked? Because it turns out he was in all the wrong places at the wrong time in connection with the wrong trade.

    The attack on the NZ dollar in 1987, The LTCM hedge fund the biggest contributing business to the Asian Crisis and the Russian Crisis, and the development of the very derivatives and financial products now causing the demise of the entire financial system.

    We are only just finding out how badly he was involved because we are only just finding out that we are in the middle of a financial Armageddon and it turns out that JK was with his other scumbag mates at the helm of the now sinking Titanic that is the financial system.

    By the way I don’t think he is evil incarnate. I just think he’s a greedy, sleazy piece of work send over here by his even more greedy sleazy masters to rob this country before the planet sinks into anarchy.

  60. Nick 60
    28 October 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Yesterday’s Flip: No need to entrench Maori seats, says Clark”. from – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10539547

    To today’s Flop: “Helen Clark made a significant concession…this morning when she said she could see no problem with Labour supporting the entrenchment of the Maori seats”. from – http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/audrey-young/2008/10/28/finally-breakthrough-maori-seats-issue/?c_id=280&objectid=10539740.

  61. Quoth the Raven 61
    28 October 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Nick – kinda of like JK’s flip flop on the Maori seats or Rodney’s.

  62. Nick 62
    28 October 2008 at 4:44 pm

    Apologies in advance if you see that comment as trolling, I thought it was too good to leave out 🙂

    [lprent: That isn’t trolling (usually). You probably got caught by the spam trap. It doesn’t like raw URL’s, with good reason – the amount of spam that gets trapped there is pretty freaky, and most of it is raw links.

    You should read this info here about how to format the links so the anti-spam doesn’t trap you.

    We (posters and commentators) generally like links (where it isn’t blatant off-topic link-whoring). We can decide if we want to look in them rather than having to read a screed of bad spelling.]

  63. Nick 63
    28 October 2008 at 4:44 pm

    Yes, true I suppose.

  64. deemac 64
    28 October 2008 at 5:01 pm

    the right wing really are desperate if they are reduced to accusing Clark of a flip flop over the Maori seats! Saying you see “no need” for something is not nearly the same as being opposed to it. If you see no danger of them being abolished, then there’s “no need” to entrench them. But if some Maori are nervous about it, then it is perfectly consistent to guarantee that they definitely are safe.

  65. Shonkey 65
    28 October 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Travellerev, not sure where the information about key being head of bonds and derivatives comes from but the trade press places him in his first London position in 1996 as “global spot and forward FX trading head”. It makes sense that he’d move into a more senior forex position in London as he started out as a spot dealer with Elders and then Bankers Trust.

    Why is this important? Because Key has made his forex market experience such a big part of his back story. The first bio I’ve seen is the 2002 one that National put out on Scoop. His Merrill experience – incorrectly said to be in New York – is mentioned and his membership of the FEC. So Key himself put this information up for scrutiny.

    And he’s now using that markets experience as a reason we should believe he can run an economy in a time of crisis. Should we? I don’t think so. The last year he was head of global forex was 2000 and the 2001 Euromoney FX poll, which reflects the previous year’s performance, rates Merrill 19th. No wonder he ended up shuffled off to e-commerce and then to Sydney, a backwater in finance world terms.

    Merrill then laid off 70 staff from its private client business in 2001, according to Dow Jones, and shed another 40-or-so employees in a voluntary redundancy programme. I have to wonder if John Key was one of them?

  66. randal 66
    28 October 2008 at 5:20 pm

    this downward spiral is beginning to look terminal…

  67. Billy 67
    28 October 2008 at 5:35 pm

    I’m very sorry to hear that, randal. Have you tried changing medication?

  68. Janet 68
    28 October 2008 at 6:01 pm

    In the future maybe Ian Wishart will have a falling out with the right and he will write a bestseller based on all this research which the current MSM has been too fearful to touch. On the cover will be an unflattering Tranzrail eyes photo, and Whitcoulls will promote it heavily and feature it on their main display tables. Professor Pierson may even be asked to review it.

  69. Daveski 69
    28 October 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Janet

    Sorry but this BS about the MSM and the treatment of the left is most ironic given the play/movie/t-shirt industry around the Hollow Men.

    I’m not trying to relitigate the Hollow men issue but you don’t need to look far to find evidence of no msm conspiracy.

    I’ll match you Wishart boogey man with Hagar. Your call.

  70. Daveski 70
    28 October 2008 at 6:28 pm

    hopefully something in my last post has triggered something automatic!

  71. travellerev 71
    28 October 2008 at 7:09 pm

    hi Shonkey,

    That came from his own website and in the interview in the NZ Herald he states that he ran a group of people developing all these new financial products.

  72. Ianmac 72
    28 October 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Have you noticed that often when Johnkey is asked a question which might be difficult to answer, he will say, “OK. Lets back up a moment….” or “Lets take a step back for a moment…..” and the question is avoided.
    Like a 3 point turn in a car. Going forward, stop, back out, drive off in another direction. Simple and it works every time. Slippery?

  73. randal 73
    28 October 2008 at 7:30 pm

    speak for yourself billy
    take three thorazine and go straight to bed

  74. Shonkey 74
    28 October 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Travellerev, according to the trade press I have read, John Key’s responsiblities didn’t extend beyond forex until April 1999 when he added European fixed income and swaps businesses, to his job as global forex head. He was, however, still the day-to-day manager of Merrill’s FX operation.

    And to correct the earlier post, as someone has already pointed out, his FEC apppointment was for a four -year term from 2000 to 2003. He lasted a little over a quarter of that – 15 months.

  75. RedLogix 75
    28 October 2008 at 8:06 pm

    And of course to correct the earlier post, as someone earlier pointed out, his FEC apppointment was for a four -year term fromm 2000 to 2003. He lasted a little over a quarter of that – 15 months.

    The enduring mystery to me is why, after all that scrambling so far up the greasy pole, did Mr Key voluntarily abandon it all to become the MP for Helensville? An Opposition backbench MP, for a party that had little prospect of gaining power anytime soon at that. For a man who has demonstrated precious little vision, projects no sense of mission (other than the betterment of his own good fortune)… what credible motive did he have for leaving his apparently very successful career, for a far less rewarding and uncertain future in the relative backwaters of New Zealand’s Parliament?

    Or is it possible that the man really is just a failed currency speculator? I mean… really.

  76. Janet 76
    28 October 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Daveski

    No contest.

    Nicky Hagar is a well-respected researcher of integrity and honesty and has the interest of NZ at heart. It is not about him. He’s not in it for money or fame. He’s a humble and determined democrat. I have heard him speak and he is very inspiring in a quiet, gentle sort of way.

    From his writings, his guesting on Jim Mora’s Panel, and the general reports of his behaviour going back many years, Ian W does not appear to be a very pleasant man. His attacks on Helen C, as exemplified by his recent book, have been particularly sleazy and mysogynist. I have never heard any one express respect for him. It seems to be all about him and his quest for fame.

  77. Pascal's bookie 77
    28 October 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Red, you might be interested in why the Socialist International Conspiracy endorses John McCain

    (hope that link works. I’ve been having problems with spare ‘ that I’m sure I’m not typing)

  78. jo zinny 78
    28 October 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Insider,

    So if Steve is guessing, please explain your basis for demanding that admission. Or can I take it that you know — actually know — better..?

  79. jo zinny 79
    28 October 2008 at 9:20 pm

    EV,

    re JK, what financial products did that link state..?

  80. RedLogix 80
    28 October 2008 at 9:21 pm

    PB,

    Oh so THAT is what happened. Why is it that I’m always the last to find out?

    So when did JK stop working for SIC then? (Or are the dates fuzzy?)

  81. jo zinny 81
    28 October 2008 at 9:35 pm

    insider,

    re the dompost.. not unrelated are the press newspaper and (stuffonline).. now given your expressed view on Mr. Peters MP, I find it rather strange – and somewhat strained commentary-wise – to see you adrift from some 25 percent of thepress readers – Yay I suspect that they meant to say 25 percent of readers asked – would like Mr. Key to withdraw his no-deal with NZF(Mr. Peters)..

    doubtless for reasons (or fears) of what might become the case post-Election.. and tickable matters tightening up some more by then..

  82. jo zinny 82
    28 October 2008 at 10:08 pm

    shonkey,

    thanks for your inputs to date. What I would like – and believe other readers here also – is a timeline of JK to employments.. elders-to-BT-to-ML – dates.. so we can try figure the action spots of let’s say 1990-95.. and 1984-91..

    could you please oblige with your take on this..

  83. Shonkey 83
    29 October 2008 at 11:27 am

    Here you go – don’t have much on the earlier years but very happy to make corrections or additions

    1985: Starts with Elders

    1987: Andy Krieger makes his speculative play on the NZ dollar

    1988: John Key joins Bankers Trust according to SST and others (BT gets banking licence in June 1988)

    1995: John Key joins ML in Singapore and runs trading and sales and is also responsible for Tokyo. (BT’s own history says BT FX operations were trouble at this stage and according to one headhunter…”BTAL staff, who at one time had never return his calls, were now calling him”)

    1996: John Key transfers to London as global spot and forward FX trading head at ML

    Jan 1998: First mention in trade press of John Key as managing director of global FX at ML in London

    April 1999: According to trade press, John Key, global head of FX at Merrill Lynch in London, takes additional responsibility for the firm’s European fixed income and swaps businesses

    Oct 1999: Harry Culham takes over global FX trading role. Key remains executive director of foreign exchange, according to trade press.

    2000: Starts his four year term as member of the Foreign Exchange Committee, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

    March 2001: Resigns from FEC, according to FEC annual report

    July 2000: Merrill Lynch appoints Keith Jacobson, global head of FX (It’s not clear if Key is still executive director or what position he holds at this stage)

    Jan 2001: By this date John Key is European head of e-commerce, according to trade press.

    April 2001: Key moves to Sydney to head Australian debt and Asian e-commerce, according to trade press.

    2001: In this year, Dow Jones says Merrill Lynch sells or closes divisions in New Zealand and Perth. It lays off 70 staff in its private client business, and loses another 40-or-so employees in a voluntary redundancy program.

    2001: Sometime this year he heads back to NZ, according to his own biography.

  84. travellerev 84
    29 October 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Shonkey,

    It would really help if you could support this timeline with links. Thanks.

  85. jo zinny 85
    29 October 2008 at 3:39 pm

    shonkey,

    thank you for that.. will do asap updates..

    from your reading of the trade press – (I guess not online..?) could you appraise me of any material comments, remarks, statements made by third parties – not BT or its advertisers – for why anyone would want to work for BT..?

    I realise how this question may appear naïve but it is appropriate I ask openly.. and hope you can respond likewise

  86. Shonkey 86
    29 October 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Jo Zinny, the BT years aren’t really anything I have copious information on but for a flavour, if you had the time and inclination, you could read the history of BT (commsisioned by them) One of a Kind: The Story of Bankers Trust Australia by Gideon Haigh. The other book that gives an insight into the heady days the 1980s trading world is Liar’s Poker by Michael Lewis. Not sure if that is the sort of information you wanted?