Another win for Goff

179 comments on “Another win for Goff ”

• Comments are now closed

1. bill fih 1

   2 November 2011 at 9:10 pm

   Sadly I had to stop watching due to awful streaming problems – hopefully John Keys brand new fibre cables will fix all this 🙂 . It must be true, I saw it in an ad.
2. Pete George 2

   2 November 2011 at 9:10 pm

   It’s the economy, and it’s no spreadsheet stupid.
   • RedLogix 2.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:16 pm

     From a political perspective the economy is numbers… spreadsheets are the tool for using numbers.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 9:32 pm

       Spreadsheets are good but what you really want is a database with visual representation. Pictures can be used effectively to help explain what’s happening.

       I doubt if the government has such a database though.
       • In Vino Veritas 2.1.1.1

         3 November 2011 at 3:52 pm

         Well Labour don’t, thats for sure Draco, they don’t even have the spreadsheet!!
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 11:38 pm

       The economy is not mainly about finances; financial economists think it might be but they are sorely mistaken 🙂

       Learnt this one from Ganesh Nana 🙂
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1

         3 November 2011 at 12:19 am

         If the numbers are representative of real resources then the database/spreadsheet would work. It’s when they’re representative of money that it doesn’t because at that point it’s no longer connected to reality.
3. RedLogix 3

   2 November 2011 at 9:15 pm

   Yes I agree.. yet the fundamental problem is that the numbers are inherently detailed. Explaining them in a debate format like this is losing. Both Key and Goff know this… which is why Key kept hammering at it and Goff kept resolutely refusing to take the bait.

   Still the interesting thing is that Key has essentially handed the initiative to Labour to produce a set of numbers that are credible. Now given that Cuniliffe and Goff and both men of considerable govt experience, both Ministers for many years… you would have to put odds on them being able to do this.

   The crucial question then is… how to get the correct forum to produce them? The msm will not do it for Labour, the pundits will just make shit up and there aren’t any public broadcasting channels left who might provide even a little objectivity.

   Again Key knows this, which is why he’s riding this bet very heavily. Because if Goff can convince that Labour can do what they have promised… Key has just made a very, very big fool of himself.
   • Carol 3.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:18 pm

     RL said: the fundamental problem is that the numbers are inherently detailed. Explaining them in a debate format like this is losing. Both Key and Goff know this… which is why Key kept hammering at it and Goff kept resolutely refusing to take the bait.

     Agree about spouting off numbers in a debate.

     Repeat of what I just posted in the leaders’ debate thread:

     Also, I think for a lot of voters, the numbers go over their heads… I’m pretty numerate, but when Key starts spouting his numbers in a debate, my eyes glaze over. I need to see them on paper and concentrate on them for a bit.

     I want to be able to have confidence in the PM and the team. I think Cunliffe knows where he’s at on the figures. I like some things about Goff, eg when he speaks with passion, but not everything. Labour needs some input from other left parties e.g. the Greens. Key just comes across to me like a Ponzi, or trans-Tasman bridge salesman.
     • Reality Bytes 3.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 9:58 pm

       Interesting, hadn’t seen it yet. But as it’s been described here, it sounds like Key is rattling off data instead of drawing conclusions and giving his “economic elite-guru” analysis.

       Anyway I suppose I should watch it and see what it’s about 🙂

       Will be interesting to see this from a critical perspective, to see whether he has a good reason for this – is it an important set of data that absolutely must be mentioned? or whether just some junk to fill up air time, or ?

       Glad to hear Goff is being adverserial to Key and calling him out on shit. Screw that idea that you have to be nice and all tea and cupcakes and kiddy gloves with him because he’s the PM-and-he’s-popular.
       Key has had a pretty cruisey run media-wise for the last few years other than the brief hard talk interview.
4. BJ 4

   2 November 2011 at 9:16 pm

   I don’t think it was that clear cut; while Goff clearly outperformed Key on Christchurch, and in the two minute closing statement, the rest of the second half was a little bit of a shambles for him. Regardless of whether John Key’s number was true, Goff was rattled by it and took a loooooong time to explain it – looking especially uncomfortable when talking about CGT not coming in til 2016. The ask the audience tactic was fairly effective, though, and continued reference to asset sales wasn’t a bad idea. Goff won, but it was by a slim margin.
   • Pete 4.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:22 pm

     The Orion comparison was particularly effective.
5. Blue 5

   2 November 2011 at 9:17 pm

   Goff needs to be on top of the numbers. He can’t let Key screw him over like that. You know what the press is going to be all over tomorrow – they’re going to run Key’s line.

   Labour did a lot of work on their numbers, and Goff needs to know them.
   • Pete George 5.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:20 pm

     It’s mind boggling that Goff didn’t have the detail on the most critical policies costed by for the debates. I thought it was an excellent debate with points each way until the spreadsheet. I wonder if the dog ate it.
     • RedLogix 5.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 9:24 pm

       Be real Pete… in a standup debate format like that Goff had no way to produce a spreadsheet, nor the time to explain one line by line.

       Key knew this and that’s why he kept riding the horse…
     • William Joyce 5.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 10:04 pm

       Dog attack in Ohariu – guy with weird hair mauled in election – unemployed figures up by one – pictures at eleven
   • fmacskasy 5.2

     2 November 2011 at 9:41 pm

     I have to agreee, Blue. if we’re going to be brutally honest, I think this round went to Key. His use (or rather, mis-use) of costings-figures worked to Key’s advantage, smarmy car-salesman that he is.

     Goff has to know the numbers, or at least a response to the costings-issue. Otherwise Key will use it everytime.

     On the plus-side: great use of the case of Orion. (Good point, Pete.) I think that would’ve worked in well with Cantabrians.

     If we’re going to keep score, it’s 1-1.
6. giovani 6

   2 November 2011 at 9:17 pm

   As usual the MSM claim it was a win for key.
7. queenstfarmer 7

   2 November 2011 at 9:20 pm

   Very good format. I only saw the last 45 minutes, but Key had Goff on the ropes on the $14 billion spending issue, and for that reason alone Key had the better of it. He virtually led Goff by the nose on that issue. Goff must have a clear 20-second response for issue (assuming, of course, that there is an answer to the alleged spending hole).
   • RedLogix 7.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:29 pm

     Again…what Key was asking Goff to do was present an alternative Budget..

     When the Minister of Finance does it he gets an hour or more of uninterupted time in the House… not 20-30 seconds in a TV debate
     • Curious 7.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 9:49 pm

       He looked like he didn’t know the answer to the question. He could have explained his position far better. Instead he floundered around and enabled Key to attack him further because it took him far too long to get to anything other than CGT, which as Goff stated doesn’t kick in until ummmm maybe 2016 (he gave the appearance he didn’t even know when it started), and slogans about the ‘rick pricks’. He looked weak. Accept it, move on, do better next time.
     • Bill 7.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 10:13 pm

       So why didn’t Goff say that? Y’know, something along the lines of….

       “What you want John? A budget statement? Get real! But look, as examples of costings, there is money coming from ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’. I can’t go through the whole thing here John, you know that. The calcualtions are there. I’ve given a few examples. You know John? We don’t make promises we can’t keep. We keep our promises and we’ll be keeping all the assets NZers already own and balancing the books by 2014. We promise not to trade away NZs future for the sake of a few bucks in the kitty to balance the books like you want to do.”
       • KJT 7.1.2.1

         2 November 2011 at 10:31 pm

         Nationals numbers depend on the confidence fairy. Not very likely with withdrawing more than a billion in spending from the economy and sending more dividends offshore.
8. mickysavage 8

   2 November 2011 at 9:23 pm

   I missed the debate because of a meeting but if we are at the stage where a debate is dominated by concerns about the opposition’s budget then the ruling party is in a bad way.

   The debate should be about the ruling party’s record and what they are going to do next.  If it is about the opposition costings then the opposition is a coherent explanation about costings away from a significant swing.

   Thanks John Key. 
   • RedLogix 8.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:26 pm

     If it is about the opposition costings then the opposition is a coherent explanation about costings away from a significant swing.

     Exactly my point above. Key may feel like he’s won a battle tonight, but he’s potentially set himself up to lose the war.
     • Tombstone 8.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 9:28 pm

       I think you might be right. Goff aint silly.
     • mickysavage 8.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 9:34 pm

       Aye RL

       The really interesting time will be when Labour explains the figures and then asks National to explain:

       1.  What happened to the bike trail jobs and economic stimulus,
       2.  Is the power share sale proceeds going to be used to reduce debt, pay for health and education, be ring fenced for strategic investments or all three?

       Key needs to understand that smarmy and superficial has a limited shelf life. 
   • Pete George 8.2

     2 November 2011 at 9:28 pm

     The spreadsheet is with the broadcasting debate and the CGT expert group – pending. Huge risk holding it back this long. If it doesn’t stack up there’s no time left.
     • mickysavage 8.2.1

       2 November 2011 at 9:41 pm

       Hey Pete

       Where is United Follicle’s costing, specifically about your super costings.

       Just asking … 
       • the sprout 8.2.1.1

         3 November 2011 at 12:02 am

         pffft, i doubt UF have got costings for their next morning tea, let alone anything to do with the nation’s economy
         • fender 8.2.1.1.1

           3 November 2011 at 1:17 am

           Very true sprout, the grey cat sits on the fence patiently waiting for a pat once the dust settles, oblivious to the fact Ohariu have moved on.
       • Pete George 8.2.1.2

         3 November 2011 at 4:07 am

         Cost neutral on the current model. If you choose to start on it at 60 it’s on a reduced rate, climbing to 70. Many people will probably switch to part time work, or one partner starts earlier, the other later. Flexibility and choice.

         The Maori Party are likely to support this, they want Maori to be able to start from 60.

         With NZF staunch on not raising the age of eligibility, Mana against it and Greens having no policy on it Labour’s proposal doesn’t look like it will get anywhere.
         • felix 8.2.1.2.1

           3 November 2011 at 7:21 am

           I like the flexible concept.

           But when you say “cost neutral” you really mean “just as unsustainable as it is now”.

           So a nice bit of tinkering, but not even trying to address the problem.
           • the sprout 8.2.1.2.1.1

             3 November 2011 at 8:04 am

             true 😆
         • Ben 8.2.1.2.2

           3 November 2011 at 8:14 am

           So I can choose when I retire, but I can’t choose what mind-altering substances I put into my body? Wow, thanks for the privilige.

           Don’t start preaching about choice when you’re actually just playing politics. Choice isn’t the issue. If it was, your policies would be radically different on any number of things.
9. Willie Maley 9

   2 November 2011 at 9:25 pm

   QSF is this the 14 billion or yesterday’s 17 billion or Monday’s 16 billion?
   • Puddleglum 9.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:35 pm

     At this rate, by the election date, Key will be asking Goff whether he’ll be giving tax cuts with the surplus he’s calculated will result from Labour’s policies. 🙂
     • Salsy 9.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 10:15 pm

       Lol!
10. Tombstone 10

    2 November 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Key had Goff on the ropes for a couple of minutes – Goff had Key on the ropes for nearly 2 hours. Goff will tear into him in the next debate and will no doubt tidy up the loose ends and be ready for more of Key’s bullshit. Seriously proud of Goff. Wife and I both thought he was easily the better man on the night. Well done!
11. ianmac 11

    2 November 2011 at 9:31 pm

    I didn’t see it as a win/lose really but that Phil had a chance to show his stuff given the denigration that he has suffered for so long. So I think that Phil demonstrated his intellect and his passion which is what I hoped he would do. Maybe a few swinging voters would say that Phil is OK. The Red and the Blue brigades will of course entrench their views.
    Will there be another such format? If so I reckon many more would tune in than watch TV1.
    • mickysavage 11.1

      2 November 2011 at 9:48 pm

      Agreed ianmac.

      This is the campaign where the super duper can walk on water John Key was up against the nerd ultra loser Phil Goff and was expected to destroy him.

      If they are equal pegging and the voters start looking at other stuff like policy then National are stuffed.  If Goff can compete then all sorts of trashing of National’s  plan for domination of NZ for the next decade is really shaky.

      Are RWNJs really happy to say that they think that Key was slightly better then Goff? 
12. DJL 12

    2 November 2011 at 9:31 pm

    For me the numbers Key was spouting was very confusing ( not very hard to confuse me) But I think goff hit a homer on the selling of Orion(?) And he slapped him with the “dynamic surcumstances” Had to LOL
13. Puddleglum 13

    2 November 2011 at 9:33 pm

    On the costings, Goff should simply have put together some of the things he ‘laboured’ over in a snappier fashion – even if he didn’t know the details.

    Something like:

    “We’re ditching the Holiday Highway; there’s a billion. We’re increasing the top tax rate; there’s ???. We’re going to keep the power company income streams; there’s $200m a year. Have you got time to still be here this time tomorrow night, John? Because I can take you through it one line at a time seeing how you’re so keen on the numbers – it’ll put the people here to sleep, no doubt, but that’s how detailed our costings are.” 
    • Salsy 13.1

      2 November 2011 at 9:56 pm

      Exactly and how about where are Nationals costings? Cos the asset sales are now going schools and hospitals, and in any case, where is the shortfall coming from those lost dividends?
    • fmacskasy 13.2

      2 November 2011 at 9:57 pm

      Precisely, Puddlegum.
    • mickysavage 13.3

      2 November 2011 at 10:03 pm

      +1
      • Craig Glen Eden 13.3.1

        2 November 2011 at 10:27 pm

        And wheres the Jobs coming from for the thousands of beneficiaries the Nats are going to get off the benefit. The current new jobs estimates the magical (170.000) have not been realized with their current lack of a plan let alone jobs in the future. That has to be raised by Phil in the next debate
    • the sprout 13.4

      2 November 2011 at 10:04 pm

      +1 Puddlegum
    • queenstfarmer 13.5

      2 November 2011 at 10:40 pm

      We’re ditching the Holiday Highway

      Yes, but they’ve already allocated it to spend it on trains. That is not filling the $14bn hole.

      We’re increasing the top tax rate

      Yes, but they’ve already allocated that to fund the GST-free fruit & veges. That is not filling the $14bn hole.

      We’re going to keep the power company income streams

      Yes, which means they are not going to partially sell them, which is not filling the $14bn hole.

      See the problem? Unless Phil gets some straight-forward answers quickly, Phil’s missing billions could become the central issue of the campaign.

      [tell us what the components of the ‘$14 billion hole’ are. You don’t know. You just believe Key. The truth is, all Labour’s policies have been balanced with a revenue source. Eddie]
      • queenstfarmer 13.5.1

        2 November 2011 at 11:06 pm

        I am not professing to know either way. The point is that Goff struggled to answer – he wasn’t denying more spending, just that it was all covered. So the poster above me put forward a list of things he thought Phil could say filled the hole (no pun intended), but none of them actually do.
        • Colonial Viper 13.5.1.1

          2 November 2011 at 11:44 pm

          There is no hole. Excepting your cake hole that is.
        • Ari 13.5.1.2

          3 November 2011 at 12:04 am

          If you don’t even know if there is a $14 billion dollar hole, why the hell should anyone tell you why it’s not there? Why don’t you come back when you actually have some idea of your own side of the debate, if you’re going to insist that everyone else refute it?
          • queenstfarmer 13.5.1.2.1

            3 November 2011 at 12:32 am

            Because Phil didn’t refute it, he was saying “the costings are all there”, but then struggled to name specifics when pressed. As I said, I do not pretend to know the veracity of Labour’s, National’s, or anyone else’s financials. But Phil couldn’t answer John’s attacks in a robust manner, and that is what he will need to address.
            • mik e 13.5.1.2.1.1

              3 November 2011 at 12:47 am

              LIAR KEY he has painted him self into a corner just like he’s done with the economy wheres the $ 500 million a year loss of income to the govt from asset sales ,key doesn’t give a shit cause he won’t be pm by then so labour will have to clean up the rights debt’s again!
              • curious …

                3 November 2011 at 6:50 am

                “The truth is, all Labour’s policies have been balanced with a revenue source. Eddie]”

                If this were true then Goff could have said :
                – “No John our commitments actually equal x and are paid by doing y”
                – “Yes John our commitments do equal x but are paid by doing y”

                But he didn’t say either of those things so perhaps he doesn’t know what they cost, how they are funded, or doesn’t think we’ll like the answer (e.g. borrowing).

                But since you know Eddie perhaps you can post a list for us. Obviously a lot of us want to know. All the major papers are leading with it so you’d be doing Goff and the public a favour by supplying the answer. Particularly since TVNZ is now saying there is a 1.9 billion hole in the tax package alone. I’m not saying that is correct but perception is all important in politics.
                
                [it’s in their policy documents. 39% tax rate pays for GST off fresh fruit and vegetables. ETS pays for R&D. CGT pays for tax-free zone and no asset sales. Eddie]

                [lprent: It is all public information. Get off your lazy arse and dig it out. While you’re at it, read about the policies here.

                Telling authors what they should or should not do is a fast way to getting banned. You live with what authors are willing to write, you do not try to tell them what they should do. I can do without you, but the site doesn’t survive without authors. So attacks on them are attacks on the site. You’re short of mana on the site.

                So banned for 2 weeks – should give you time to read the policy and find out the figures. ]
                • curious …

                  3 November 2011 at 7:01 am

                  CGT doesn’t start to after 2014/15 then doesn’t generate much revenue till around 2020 so either Labour won’t be bringing in tax free threshold until that time (4 to 9 years away) or what, will be borrowing for tax cuts?

                  And all capital investment until the point of CGT ramping up will be paid for by borrowing, mainly from offshore?

                  So can you please tell us what the total level of required borrowing is and the interest payment costs of that?

                  How is restoring the Superfund payments to be paid for?

                  How are the compulsory Kiwisaver government financial costs to be paid for?

                  How are the minimum wage increase costs for government services to be paid for?

                  How are early childhood education costs to be paid for?

                  How is the Ministry for Children to be paid for?

                  [I don’t have their detailed costings. I know that National has an operating allowance in future years that pays for moderate spending increases. DoL says that the minimum wage is a wash for the government – higher tax take, some higher wage costs. And the Super Fund is an asset, it actually lowers net debt. Eddie]
                  • curious …

                    3 November 2011 at 7:30 am

                    It only reduces net debt if its gains exceed the cost of contributions and running costs. In the current market it questionable that will occur over the next few years particularly if worst scenario occurs. But of course you’re not one to shy away from a good old financial gamble.

                    I’m also curious as to how Labour will fund the approxitmately $3.6 billion of health and education funding that will be required over the next four years on top of all their election commitments… What comprises National’s operating allowances? I’d say that’s its a mixture of new funding and spending cuts. Are Labour going to make those spending cuts or just borrow?

                    [increases in budgets due to demographics – health, education, superannuation etc – are allowed for in the Budget. New money doesn’t have to be found for them. This is pretty basic stuff, curious. Eddie]
                    • curious …

                      3 November 2011 at 7:49 am

                      That’s BS Eddie. There’s no free lunch. They have to be funded somehow. Last budget they were funded by making savings across government – i.e. no new funding. National will intend to do similarly over the next few budgets with some new funding. My question is how will Labour do it and how can they afford to use new funding if most prioritised to funding their election commitments. Pretty simple really.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  3 November 2011 at 7:15 am

                  “it’s in their policy documents. 39% tax rate pays for GST off fresh fruit and vegetables. ETS pays for R&D. CGT pays for tax-free zone and no asset sales”. Eddie

                  OK, I’m going to play the skeptic – if returns from CGT don’t kick in ’til 2016, how are we back in surplus by 2014?

                  I can think of a few ways: the tax-free zone might largely pay for itself, since the people who need the money most will spend it, increased profits, more jobs, etc etc. Or Labour may be relying on raising taxes to boost the economy, as Clinton did, but it’s important that the answers be ready.

                  Also call Key out on his shifting goalposts “last week it was $19b, now you say $14b, but I’m not making up these numbers, John, because Labour has a fully costed budget (waves paper around) which as you know we released yesterday.”
                  • curious …

                    3 November 2011 at 7:18 am

                    Ok so Labour are going to bank on unrealised economic growth gains? How ironic
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      3 November 2011 at 8:10 am

                      Yeah, like I speak for the Labour party. Not. If you think I have my facts wrong cite some of your own, but don’t fool yourself that I speak for anyone but me.
                      Oh, no, wait, as a Brand Key supporter that answer is going to sail right over your head.
                      Me not Labour Party, black rock different to white rock. Bang rocks together, make fire!
      • Puddleglum 13.5.2

        2 November 2011 at 11:09 pm

        If you watch the debate again, qsf, you’ll notice that Key’s ‘hole’ was in part calculated by adding the GST off fresh fruit and veges – so, thanks for confirming that that part of the hole is filled.

        And, if the income streams can’t be calculated as filling the ‘hole’ then, presumably, National has to count not having that stream – so it’s calculations don’t look too hot either.

        You have to have a look at how Key calculates the hole before determining whether the hole is being filled.

        But, yes, I agree that Goff needs to answer this – not me. 
      • Jester 13.5.3

        3 November 2011 at 1:28 am

        To Eddie:

        What “revenue source” is that. If you get to 7 billion i will give you a chocolate fish 🙂
    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.6

      3 November 2011 at 6:33 am

      Puddleglum, that’s great. Quick, someone invent a time machine! Still, there’s always next time eh.
      I missed most of it, and have only seen the part where Key was waving his imaginary figures around, so it’s great to see the Stuff strawpoll (which picked Key by a nose last time) favouring Goff (edit: of course since writing this it’s swung back to Key by a nose – Goff needs a better rebuttal to the $14b hole – but it’s a tactical blunder by Key – he’s used his best attack on his smallest audience and he won’t get a second bite of the cherry.)
      • Carol 13.6.1

        3 November 2011 at 6:41 am

        Stuff’s poll (which usually strongly favours the right) favours Key this time, by a very small nose: 47% to 46.4% + 6.6% neither.
        • Gosman 13.6.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 8:40 am

          Don’t worry. Normal service has resumed. It is now 51.4 % to 41.2 % Key over Goff. Obviously at 6:30 am the impact of the media take on the outcome hadn’t kicked in.
14. Terry 14

    2 November 2011 at 9:34 pm

    Why is it that ethical issues are not raised in these debates? Both Parties are scapegoating beneficiaries, for example. Political Parties create beneficiaries, then punish them for being beneficiaries! What about the ethics of taking the attack to children, young people, whom they know cannot damn well vote? Where do we see the morality of “serving the people” in politics? How is it that “democratic” has become not a word, but a cliche? What of the treatment of peaceful protestors (e.g. at Wall Street, or in Dunedin? Must we foment revolution to see real change?) These debates need to get real!
15. geoff 15

    2 November 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Anyone know if there is a link to a recording of the debate?
16. William Joyce 16

    2 November 2011 at 10:07 pm

    Who’s this Drunken Sailor they are talking about?
    • ianmac 16.1

      2 November 2011 at 11:34 pm

      Great William!
      • fender 16.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 1:37 am

        Great work William, you know what to do with a drunken sailor.
17. seeker 17

    2 November 2011 at 10:11 pm

    I agree with both Micky Savage 9.23pm and Redlogix 924 and 926pm. Goff, I hope, was letting Key scoff himself to death prematurely.

    Meanwhile one wise tweet after the debate suggested any who wanted to know more about Phil’s costings should link to:

    http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/growing-our-economy
    – which also tells us that more on economic policy would be rolled out before the election.

    NB.Loved Goff’s ‘muffin – worst argument’ comment.This won the debate for me and showed John Key for the pithy, petty, low grade thinking he and his party wallow in.
18. Thomas 18

    2 November 2011 at 10:12 pm

    You guys must’ve been watching a different debate. Key made Goff look like a fool.

    Numbers matter and Goff didn’t have them. He couldn’t explain how he’d pay for his promises. Labour haven’t released any info on this. He couldn’t weasel his way out of the dilemma and Labour can’t without fudging the numbers.

    Goff will just be thankful that this wasn’t televised.
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      2 November 2011 at 11:46 pm

      Key made numbers up tonight, just like he made numbers up for Christchurch houses to be demolished, just like he made numbers up as a financial speculator.
      • Thomas 18.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 8:06 am

        Then Goff should’ve questioned Key’s numbers. He didn’t. He didn’t know what he was talking about.

        Labour should release its costings to counter National’s. I mean, surely they have worked out the cost of their policies and it’s just a matter of writing up a release, right?

        Key outclassed Goff and it was plain for all to see.
        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 8:09 am

          National doesn’t have any costings.

          How can you have costings when National is assuming tax income from 170,000 new jobs over 4 years, starting from last year?

          Its Key who is making convenient lies here.
          • Gosman 18.1.1.1.1

            3 November 2011 at 8:14 am

            We’re not looking at National’s costing though. The issue that was being discussed last night was Labour’s costings. It isn’t really a valid defence to say “Well your policy prescriptions haven’t been costed either”.
        • Gosman 18.1.1.2

          3 November 2011 at 8:11 am

          Good point Thomas.

          If it is true, as many Labour party supporters would have us believe, that Labour has already fully costed their spending and that National’s figures are made up then why do we have to wait until the end of the week before we see this?

          Labour activists should have been all over this on the night and have been giving this information to the Journalists at the conclusions of the debate pointing out how National was making things up.

          The fact that they didn’t is the biggest failing of the night and the reason they lost the debate.
19. gobsmacked 19

    2 November 2011 at 10:17 pm

    The media seem to have picked up on Key’s “Show me the money, son“.

    If I was Key’s Evil Rovian Mastermind, I’d have winced at that last word. That was a taste of Key as seen in the House (i.e. not seen by most voters). Key’s nice guy image is a vote-winner, the sneering is not. He needs to keep that under control.

    In all honesty, I doubt that Goff can defeat him at this election, but hubris just might.
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      2 November 2011 at 11:47 pm

      Please do NOT give AID AND COMFORT to the enemy. FFS.
    • Ari 19.2

      3 November 2011 at 12:07 am

      If we get a new government this election, you’re right, it won’t be because Phil Goff won. It will be because John Key lost, and Labour and the Greens won. 😉
20. Rain33 20

    2 November 2011 at 10:24 pm

    I still can’t get over John Key referring to Goff as “son”…… ‘It ain’t there son, there is no tax revenue’ Reminds me of the ‘boy’ references of the old days of the South!
    • Tigger 20.1

      2 November 2011 at 10:40 pm

      Or a gay daddy-son/older man/younger man relationship. It was plain creepy. Course the media will lord it as brilliant strategy and funny beyond words.
    • Campbell Larsen 20.2

      3 November 2011 at 12:16 pm

      I believe he was referencing himself in another equally unfunny and clumsy moment earlier in the week when he used a father/ son analogy.
      Typical, he is so self obsessed that he thinks people hang off his every word and actually take that simplistic shit on board – I only noted it because it was yet another example of the Rats trying to dumb down debate using simplistic analogies.
      It was inappropriate and out of place and made a mockery of his assertion that he gives due respect to the office of the leader of the opposition – and so the mask slips a little more and we get to see the real Shonky – contrived and conceited.
21. McFlock 21

    2 November 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Stats are what websites are good for. I also like the idea of suggesting that key makes the numbers up on the spot – the only figures Goff needs on hand are the different ones that key has uttered. And the rest of the response is an advert for the labour party website.
     
    Messages – labour has thorough costings available for people who are really interested. Key has been either accidentally or intentionally incorrect, as demonstrated by the idea that no two figures key delivers match (followup to the “lie” statement).
     
    • fmacskasy 21.1

      2 November 2011 at 10:41 pm

      Indeed he does. I attended a couple of public meetings and he’ll make up details as he goes along. Sometimes the use of his BS “facts” are outrageous, but the debate moves along so fast it’s hard to pin him down.

      He basically uses the tempo of a public speech, debate, etc, to make ad hoc statements-of-“facts”, and quickly move on to the next point.

      Check out his speech style; it’s kinda like a teacher explaining how something works.

      He truly is the Master of BS; the epitomy of The Politician.
    • Colonial Viper 21.2

      2 November 2011 at 11:49 pm

      Key does make numbers up on the spot. Like how many Christchurch houses needed to be demolished.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 21.2.1

        3 November 2011 at 6:26 am

        It’s pretty much impossible to halt a Gish-gallop in mid flow, which is why the debates need fact checkers who could relay these lies to the audience at the end.
22. just saying 22

    2 November 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Quick point.

    If Key brings up the point that many kiwis own Aussie power company shares again, as a positive for asset sales, it might be an idea to point out that that’s because the shares are good for the buyer. In this case NZ is the seller.

    As one who cares about making an easy buck and not the country, he probably doesn’t see that as an issue.
    • ianmac 22.1

      2 November 2011 at 11:36 pm

      Yes +1
    • In Vino Veritas 22.2

      3 November 2011 at 4:00 pm

      just saying, on asset sales – read this:

      http://rogerkerr.wordpress.com/tag/privatisation/

      It might give you a realistic understanding of privatisations, dividend streams from them and benefits. Theres a fair chunk of reading, but the arguments are pretty damn compelling. This guy was one seriously intelligent man.
23. anne 23

    2 November 2011 at 10:53 pm

    For a man that national continually put down, Goff showed key a thing or two,key has been in the debate arena,Goff hasn’t,Goff took it to key once again,showing that he is strong,resolute,
    and deserves to be the leader of the labour party and the next prime minister,when figures are asked of key all you get is data matches and numbers that miss the question,continual blaming labour for the retail deposit scheme when english changed the terms and conditions and told scf investors at a meeting they now had the benefit of the crown guarantee,which cost tax payers
    $2 billion,that conversation started but key broke in with more verbal bs,All in all though much better than the tvnz debate.
24. SeanT 24

    2 November 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Did I hear right when Key was doing the number. Did he include 6 billion dollars lost from not selling state assets in the $17 billion Labour deficient? How exactly does not selling our assets add to our deficient? Selling them would raise funds in the short term, but we are not going to lose money from keeping them. Someone please tell me I misheard that.
    • KJT 24.1

      3 November 2011 at 9:31 am

      Nationals numbers do not add up. They are expecting an increasing tax take while taking more money out of the economy.

      Waiting for the confidence fairy.
25. Tombstone 25

    2 November 2011 at 11:09 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/5894154/Prime-Minister-misled-public-over-health-cuts – interesting reading
26. Tombstone 26

    2 November 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Phil Goff leading Stuff voters poll in debate!
    • Carol 26.1

      3 November 2011 at 6:45 am

      It’s Key winnihng by less than 1% this morning – and stuff’s polls usually slant strongly to the right.
      • Colonial Viper 26.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 8:12 am

        Anything which is close to a draw between Goff and Key – is a strong win for Labour.

        That’s National’s problem this week.
    • Deadly_NZ 26.2

      3 November 2011 at 12:06 pm

      Not anymore a couple of thousand NATS have voted and it’s now Key 56% Goff 36%
27. Morrissey 27

    3 November 2011 at 12:06 am

    That’s two out of two for Goff.
28. Anthony 28

    3 November 2011 at 12:23 am

    Haha I love John Key and his ghost numbers.
29. fmacskasy 29

    3 November 2011 at 12:38 am

    I’ll add one thing more: if Key wins this election, he’ll become the most unpopular Prime Minister since Jenny Shipley. Quite simply, his mask is slipping and more ands more folk are seeing his arrogance.

    He won’t make it for a third term.
    • Akldnut 29.1

      3 November 2011 at 1:28 am

      At the rate he’s going he won’t need a third term, the cover of the first term promises can be removed and anything he may have indicated at any stage will become fair game through “The people voted me in” mandate.
      • Draco T Bastard 29.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 1:32 am

        Yep, National will use anything to justify dictatorship.
    • Colonial Viper 29.2

      3 November 2011 at 1:40 am

      Key will be a shit unpopular PM within 6 months if he is voted in again; and its going to be all downhill from there.
      • fender 29.2.1

        3 November 2011 at 1:49 am

        Very true, lets just hope he loses and we avoid having to tell Nat supporters “I told you so”. Though I guess all Nat voters will deny doing so, they are great at denial.
30. Debatewatcher 30

    3 November 2011 at 3:59 am

    Is the debate available online for delayed viewing? I can only find the live stream on the Stuff website.
31. One Anonymous Bloke 31

    3 November 2011 at 6:15 am

    Brand Key lies to parliament again, accepts a $35,000 pay-off. And respect to the Todd’s for their even-handed support of New Zealand democracy – I understand Sir Bob Jones has a similar policy of donating to all.
32. Tigger 32

    3 November 2011 at 6:36 am

    Key’s ‘borrow money from China’ was a racist wolf whistle. If it wasn’t, why mention China?
    • Gosman 32.1

      3 November 2011 at 7:26 am

      Tgat’s rich considering Labour’s whole land sale policy seems to be based on xenophobia.
      • fmacskasy 32.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 9:40 am

        Rubbish. It is based on economics; not selling the means of production and losing our income in the procress.

        It is based on not depriving our children the opportunity to buy farms, and not be outbid by overseas investors.

        Xenophobia is a red herring, and if that’s your asrgument then you have no argument.
        • Gosman 32.1.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 10:14 am

          Now, now Frank we both know that your understanding about the economics of foreign ownership of land leaves a little to be desired. I mean you have difficulty understanding the difference between revenue and profit and also think foreign ownership would lead to higher prices in NZ when there is no evidence to support this wacky idea.
          • fmacskasy 32.1.1.1.1

            3 November 2011 at 1:43 pm

            By the way, Gosman, you reference to “xenophobia” is sadly misplaced. Reference to this story in the Dompost;

            “The online nationally representative poll also found Kiwis were not xenophobic in opposing a Crafar farms sale to the Chinese.

            The main reasons given for not selling to foreign companies were to keep control of primary resources, and so Kiwis benefited from exports, not foreigners. ”

            – http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/farming/5899771/Kiwis-against-foreign-ownership-of-farms?comment_msg=posted#post_comment

            So – you were saying?

            As for youre reference to my understanding of facts – you still haven’t disproved anything I’ve said. Belittling my points is not a debate-winning proposition.
            • Gosman 32.1.1.1.1.1

              3 November 2011 at 2:48 pm

              Come on Frank. You had an entire article on your blog where the title was about 5.3 Billion dollars being repatriated from NZ based on the faulty logic of 50% of NZ Farmland being owned overseas and the ENTIRE revenue generated from 50% of NZ milk production being sent overseas. On top of this you mistook Capital flows for Imports and Exports and tried to argue that Foreign ownership of farmland leads to higher domestic prices because somehow the foreign owners would bypass NZ distribution and create their own. You constantly ignored my questions about these issues yet you have the nerve to state that I never showed where you were wrong.
              • fmacskasy …

                3 November 2011 at 8:09 pm

                Gosman, I was reasonably thorough in my article on foreign ownership. (http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/how-to-lose-5-3-billion-dollars-without-any-effort-at-all/ ) However, if you’re going to be pedantic and insist on focusing on trivia, and side-issues, then sorry, I haven’t the time or inclination to indulge you.

                It’s actually fairly basic stuff; if farms are 100% NZ owned then the profits go to New Zealanders, and the money is spent here in NZ.

                If, for example half the dairy farms are owned by offshore investors, then half the Fonterra payout would end up overseas as well. What part of this escapes you?

                It’s a funny old world we live in, Gosman, but investors usually insist on a return on their investments (it’s de rigueur for capitalists, y’know, to make a profit).

                I can’t explain it any clearer than that to you except paint you a picture of $5.3 billion dollars leaving the country and ending up in foreign bank accounts.

                Which, by the way is pretty much what happened when SOEs were flogged off in the late ’80s and 1990s. Firstly we got the cash up-front. But soon, that was eroded as profits were remitted offshore. Which played merry hell with our Balance of Payments. (Remittances being one of the “invisibles” that can affect our BoP.)

                If you have difficulty with that, try this: http://tinyurl.com/4a2b
                • Gosman …

                  4 November 2011 at 5:47 am

                  Thanks for demonstrating your lack of understanding for basic principles of economics once again. You don’t seem to understand that the Fonterra payout is REVENUE not PROFIT. As I have told you before it would be an incredibly stupid foreign owned business that treated the two as the same thing and repatriated the entire revenue stream.
33. Carol 33

    3 November 2011 at 6:51 am

    Interesting. Tracy Watkins says it’s cost Goff that he couldn’t produce the figures in response to ey during the debate, but had regained his composure and prduced the firgures to themedia after the debate:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/5899989/Costings-stumble-cost-Goff

    By the time the debate was over Goff seemed to have regained his footing and rattled off some of the figures to waiting journalists.

    But the damage was already done. Show me the money will be the catch cry of the campaign unless Labour releases credible costings soon.

    But she doesn’t seem to have any interest in quoting the figures in order to compare them with Key’s. She just treats it as a manner of winning the game. Shame on you Watkins.
    • Gosman 33.1

      3 November 2011 at 7:22 am

      If it is correct that the answers to the costings were provided after the debate how come the media message this morning is that Labour will provide them later this week?

      What is clear is the whole point of this post to say Goff won the debate handsomely is rubbish. Not according to the MSM he didn’t.
      • curious 33.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 7:36 am

        There is a difference between “costings” and how costs are “funded”. Goff can prattle off how much he plans to spend as much as he likes. What people want to know is how he’s going to fund them i.e. both sides of the ledger.
        • William Joyce 33.1.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 8:36 am

          Costings DOES include how you are going to pay for things. Trying to prove Labour is irresponsible by creating an artificial semantic problem is pathetic.
          Every time Labour has announced a funding commitment it has also told us how they are going to pay for it.
          Have you not been paying attention?
      • pollywog 33.1.2

        3 November 2011 at 8:18 am

        What is clear is the whole point of this post to say Goff won the debate handsomely is rubbish. Not according to the MSM he didn’t.

        FUCK THE MSM !!!

        they can’t be trusted to tell the truth anymore than Key can.
        • Gosman 33.1.2.1

          3 November 2011 at 8:24 am

          So you can’t trust the State owned Radio network to engage in proper journalistic practices can you? Radio NZ National take this morning was along the same lines.

          I think it is a worrying issue with aspects of the left that they start thinking there is a media conspiracy against them. It is worrying because the solution to this is often to set up panels to ensure ‘balance’ in the media.
          • Campbell Larsen 33.1.2.1.1

            3 November 2011 at 8:56 am

            Easy solution: reject forign ownership and duopolistic tendencies in the MSM. Undo the appointment of party hacks to positions of influence in state broadcasters. Support independent media.
            • pollywog 33.1.2.1.1.1

              3 November 2011 at 9:10 am

              So you can’t trust the State owned Radio network to engage in proper journalistic practices can you?

              If you’re saying we can’t trust individual journalists, regardless of their employer, to keep their personal political bias out of the story…then yes, I concur.
              • Gosman …

                3 November 2011 at 10:07 am

                No, I’m meaning the editorial stance of the entire News department at Radio NZ National not just the bias of one or two journalists who work there. It is the editorial team who determine what news stories should lead the news and what the headlines should be. This morning for many of the top of the hour news it was about Goff being taken to task over the costings of Labour’s policies.
                • fmacskasy …

                  3 November 2011 at 1:44 pm

                  No “bias” at RNZ?

                  Sure.

                  Hence why they banned – sorry, “chose not to re-invite” – Bomber Bradbury.

                  That’s hilarious.

                  Got any more?
                  • Gosman …

                    3 November 2011 at 2:54 pm

                    Pray tell Frank, what has the Labour party done about this appalling political bias in the editorial policy of RNZ National beyond a few feeble blogs on Red Alert bemoaning the decision?

                    I actually don’t think Martyn Bradbury should have been disinvited from ‘The Panel’. He is the best advert for right-wing views in the media. However there is no evidence of direct or indirect political interference in the decision to not invite him back again.
                    • fmacskasy …

                      3 November 2011 at 8:16 pm

                      However there is no evidence of direct or indirect political interference in the decision to not invite him back again.

                      That you know of.

                      Just because YOU aren’t aware of what went on, doesn’t mean a reality exists that you simply weren’t privy to.

                      Because someone got ‘spooked’ enough to ban Martyn, that much is a fact.
              • idlegus …

                3 November 2011 at 10:18 am

                msm is all over the place, radiolive at every available minute is bashing me over the head with ‘key clearly won, yet just had a clip of the press editor who said goff won, & the odt on page 2 says it was even! so yeah, grain of salt stuff really. but by going on the stuff comments, theres a lot people who are being put off by keys childish comments, about time.
34. Tombstone 34

    3 November 2011 at 7:21 am

    I agree with what others have said that if Key does get back in the one thing that is certain is that people are wise to him now and yeah, I think in 6 months time he’ll become a seriously hated man. Small consolation I guess should Labour not win.
    • Gosman 34.1

      3 November 2011 at 7:56 am

      So that’s the great victory in this debate is it? That more people won’t like John Key if the National party wins the election.
    • Nick 34.2

      3 November 2011 at 8:25 am

      I’ve heard that Key would step down in the first year anyway and leave all the unpopular stuff to Bill English or someone else to deliver. We all know he’s not the one pulling strings in that party and if the mask slips too much he’ll go back to making millions with other people’s money and leave someone else to do the hatchet job.
35. higherstandard 35

    3 November 2011 at 7:41 am

    He doesn’t know because he doesn’t want to announce another quite high tax rate on those above $150kish just yet.

    You heard it here first.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 35.1

      3 November 2011 at 7:43 am

      “Quite high tax rate” Good. It makes sense for society’s biggest beneficiaries to make the largest contribution.
      • Gosman 35.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 7:58 am

        They already do. By a long way.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 35.1.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 9:38 am

          Bullshit – Sam Morgan let the cat out of the bag and it’s not going back in no matter how many lies you or Brand Key or anyone else can come up with.
        • fmacskasy 35.1.1.2

          3 November 2011 at 8:24 pm

          “They already do. By a long way.”

          Not true.

          I thought you dealt in “facts”?
36. Colonial Viper 36

    3 November 2011 at 7:49 am

    NZ Herald Picks Key as “Show Me the Money” Winner, Goff “Flaps”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10763545
    • Gosman 36.1

      3 November 2011 at 7:55 am

      Exactly. The MSM message about this debate was that Goff started well and had Key on the back foot in the first hour but the Key took it to Goff in the second hour and won a lot of the audience over. This is completely at odds with the spin in the article at the top of this thread.
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 36.2

      3 November 2011 at 7:56 am

      I did not see the debate. I do, however, note that Eddie alone seems to have picked Goff as the winner.
      • Gosman 36.2.1

        3 November 2011 at 8:00 am

        Yes it is rather strange. Admittedly picking winners in a debate is always a matter of opinion but you have to be particularly one eyed to spin last night’s debate as a victory for Goff.
        • pollywog 36.2.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 8:28 am

          It’s no wonder Goff doesn’t respect him. Key has no respect for the office and title.

          When the trained MSM monkeys proclaim Key acting like a sideshow clown at a cheap carnival is what wins a political debate you know they’ve hit the panic button and are desperate to get their man over the line.
          • Gosman 36.2.1.1.1

            3 November 2011 at 8:37 am

            Wow! I didn’t realise Radio NZ National was such a partisan source of news. Obviously the left’s Broadcasting policy will be to reform this extremely biased media organisation by a serious dose of re-education.
            • pollywog 36.2.1.1.1.1

              3 November 2011 at 8:48 am

              Wow! I didn’t realise…

              I know son, i know…. now grab your lunch and run along. There’s a good lad.
    • Colonial Viper 36.3

      3 November 2011 at 8:01 am

      Stuff had much fairer coverage of the debate, assigning strong points to both sides.
      • Gosman 36.3.1

        3 November 2011 at 8:18 am

        Yet in the opinion pieces they still claim that Key came out better than Goff.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/5898958/Second-debate-a-win-for-Key

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/5899989/Costings-stumble-cost-Goff
        • fmacskasy 36.3.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 9:37 am

          Gosman, I think you’re making an assumption that because Goff (may have) fared poorly in last night’s debate, that Labour’s policies are somehow equally lacking in merit. Don’t confuse the two.
37. just saying 37

    3 November 2011 at 8:21 am

    Key said the gap between the rich and poor in NZ has closed slightly. Goff didn’t disagree at the time. I don’t see how this could be true. Is Key quoting some dodgy stats again, or just outright lying? This needs to be clarified because it is a big issue.

    Also, I see most of the media have chosen to overlook Key calling Goff “son”. Bit like they tried to hide the throat-slashing incident until it became clear that not reporting it was causing more harm to Key, so they went into minimisation/obfuscation damage-control reportage of it.
    • Gosman 37.1

      3 November 2011 at 8:35 am

      Yeah and they didn’t make a big deal about him insulting Sailor’s either in the previous debate. Obviously National has the MSM, (including the State owned part of it) in their pocket. Those evil Tories eh.
    • Tom Gould 37.2

      3 November 2011 at 8:39 am

      Goff’s problem is that he is fundamentally an honest guy, so he struggles with glib half-truths as answers to serious questions. Unlike the other guy, who lies effortlessly.
      • fmacskasy 37.2.1

        3 November 2011 at 9:43 am

        You’ve nailed it 100%, Tom.

        In which case, it may take another term before the Voting Public realises that Key is a conman.
      • Gosman 37.2.2

        3 November 2011 at 10:00 am

        No Goff’s problem, and by extension Labour’s, was that he was fundamentally unprepared to deflect the criticism about Labour’s spending plans by providing ready facts to counter the accusation.
38. wHICHfINDER 38

    3 November 2011 at 8:50 am

    I hate to spoil the party, but can anyone post a good link so I can see the debate for myself ?
    • insider 38.1

      3 November 2011 at 11:15 am

      Some of it is here

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/campaign-trail/5898748/John-Key-brings-out-L-word-in-debate
      • rosy 38.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 11:19 am

        Or here….
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/election-2011/5886919/The-Press-leaders-debate
39. William Joyce 39

    3 November 2011 at 8:51 am

    I don’t think we gain much by assuming there is some vast MSM ring-wing conspiracy. To paraphrase someone else – why attribute events to malice when stupidity is a better explanation.
    The 24 hour news cycle and the internet age requires journos to make immediate responses to events. There is no time for reflection and proper analysis. Last night’s debate required immediate responses on web sites and packages to be edited late in the night for morning radio and television.
     
    Add to that newsrooms full of pimply faced children fresh out of the journalism sausage machine, with a poor command of English, no understanding of the humanities and social sciences, no life experiences, unable to reason properly and who are prepared to work for peanuts and frame stories that feed the money making machine.
     
    Undoubtedly there are people with bias in the media and we can spot them and mark them for what they are.
     
    Key provided a soundbite and that is what the shallow, ratings driven, every second on air is money, that the media love.

    Goff needs to go on the offensive today – not tomorrow, tomorrow it too late  – and grab the media attention by providing the costings with much hoopla.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 39.1

      3 November 2011 at 9:04 am

      “An attack by John Key on Labour’s credibility in last night’s leaders debate comes as a new poll shows voters think the Government is doing a good job of managing the economy.” Stuff.

      Yes, if Labour has costings ready they need to be released today, and if they don’t have the costings ready they need to be finished and released today. Tomorrow morning’s headlines at the very very latest.
      Edit: accompanied by a solid hit on Key for making up the numbers again, to swing the debate right back around and focus again upon his mendacity.
      • insider 39.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 11:34 am

        If they don’t have the costings how can they claim to be focused on policy? Funding is a key part of good policy. That makes it appear they are making the numbers up as they go. They’ve known about the election date for six months.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 39.1.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 11:36 am

          I agree, timing is a vital factor in any election campaign.
    • Gosman 39.2

      3 November 2011 at 10:20 am

      Translation from Leftistese to plain English : –

      “The Journos aren’t left wing enough.”
40. Hami Shearlie 40

    3 November 2011 at 8:54 am

    First the hole was $17 billion, then it was $14 billion, seems to be going down every time JK opens his mouth! What is he going to do at the end of the week when the figures are released. He’s shot his bullet, and it seems to be the only one he has – Good debate, it showed Phil Goff’s humanity and empathy for the Christchurch people and kiwis generally, and showed John Key’s total fixation on money. There’s more to running a country than money alone – you have to have vision, innovation and fresh ideas and National have none!
    • Afewknowthetruth 40.1

      3 November 2011 at 11:06 am

      HS.

      Money is now the God in Godzone.

      It took the money-lenders a while to achieve their goal but they now have the bulk of the populace thinking more about money and possessions (together with entertianment) than their own futures.
41. Adrian 41

    3 November 2011 at 8:57 am

    Key’s on dodgy ground with the drunken bit. Phil didn’t fall off a step on New Years Eve while pissed and break his arm, but you can bet that if he did the MSM would still be reminding us of it.
42. Quasimodo 42

    3 November 2011 at 9:38 am

    “Show me the money !” .. another thought-stopper trumping rational critique.

    Crosby-Textor has moved on from “actually”, but it is the same script.

    Key calls it a “battle of ideas”, but C-T’s emphasis is too much on ‘battle’, not enough on ‘ideas’.
43. MrSmith 43

    3 November 2011 at 9:38 am

    Let face it most people couldn’t care less about the numbers, all this exposure is great for Phil and most people will vote for the man/woman not a bunch of figures.
    • higherstandard 43.1

      3 November 2011 at 9:40 am

      “……..all this exposure is great for Phil and most people will vote for the man/woman not a bunch of figures.”

      Bit unfair referring to Phil and John as ‘man/woman’ – but I s’pose both of them would do anything to secure power.
44. higherstandard 44

    3 November 2011 at 9:41 am

    So if the Nats win on election night Eddie will be hailing it as “Another win for Goff.”
    • William Joyce 44.1

      3 November 2011 at 10:00 am

      Yes, it will be. When you are knee deep in a financier engineered gutter economy akin to  Greece and John Key is back in Hawaii, sitting on his deck drinking for breakfast, then you will realise you were too stupid to vote for Goff.
      Of course the real problem is whether your stupidity will out last its consequences.
      • higherstandard 44.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 10:13 am

        Hi [deleted] – loved your Key drunken sailor picture.

        [lprent: Speculating on peoples real life identities is something I don’t like and I’ve pointed it out to you before. Two week ban. ]
45. Gosman 45

    3 November 2011 at 10:10 am

    When is Eddie going to change the title of this article to “Goff did quite well I thought”?

    It is plain that this was not a win by any means to the leader of the opposition.

    [lprent: That is your opinion. Eddie has his own opinion.

    I have my opinion which currently has my finger hovering over the ban button. Read the sections in the policy where I explain that commentators can argue with authors opinions, but cannot even approach trying to tell them what they should do.

    My opinion is that there are always commentators in various states of evolution, but authors are a *lot* harder to get up to scratch. Guess whom I would prefer to lose.

    You are trying to say what Eddie should do. If I spot another comment that does then I will eliminate your inability to read and comprehend. And I have several hundred more messages to read in this sweep…. ]
46. Afewknowthetruth 46

    3 November 2011 at 10:38 am

    Seeker.

    Your link says this:

    ‘Foreign Investment Is Welcome
    Access to foreign capital is important for New Zealand and Labour will encourage other forms for foreign direct investment.

    New Zealand’s poor savings record means we are reliant on imported capital to fund our current account deficit. While a poor substitute for domestic savings, until domestic savings and economic growth improve, New Zealanders will continue to have substantial reliance on foreign investment. New greenfield investments, in particular, bring jobs and economic growth.’

    Mike Ruppert put it succinctly when he said:” Anyone who talks about growth is your enemy!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbiyCldxG8s

    David Suzuki was talking along similar lines:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AqiVdruCII

    It is clear that those who write Labour Party propaganda have little idea what is happening around the world and why it is happening, or they are lying. (That is not an endorsement of National, which is even more detached from reality or lying even more than Labour is).

    It is also clear to anyone who has escaped from ‘the Matirx’ that the so-called debates are simply well orchestrated circuses, designed to keep the masses locked into redundant paradigms (the debates are founded on paradigms that have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false, e.g. perpetual growth on a finite planet). Money IS debt!

    Judging by the response of most people on TS, the so-called debates are a very successful method for keeping the ‘sheep in the pen’ and keep them ‘bleating helplessly’. Meanwhile the ‘pack of wolves’ gathering outside the ‘sheep pen’. i.e. Peak Oil, unravelling of Fractional Reserve Banking, unravelling of the derivatives market, environmental collapse etc., gets bigger by the day. The ‘performers’ Goff and Key carefully avoid any mention of ‘the wolves’ (reality) throughout the entire performance.

    These are such interesting times.

    By the way, what are you seeking, ‘Seeker’? The truth?
    • gnomic 46.1

      3 November 2011 at 11:59 am

      The following quotations come to mind.

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

      The statesman is a crafty man and learns his lies by rote.
      The journalist invents his lies and rams them down your throat.
      So sit at home and drink your beer
      and let the neighbours vote.

      – WB Yeats.

      You cannot hope to bribe or twist
      (thank God!) the British journalist.
      But, seeing what the man will do
      Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
      – Humbert Wolfe

      I’m afraid the sheeple don’t want to know the truth, and the meeja, even if they knew the truth would have very little interest in conveying it to the admass. If your view of the world is correct the ugly reality will be revealed when the current financial, economic, and political systems collapse due to resource constraints. On the other hand Owen Glenn says NZ has the most extractable resources per capita in the world after Saudi Arabia, so perhaps we’ll soon be living the life of Reilly. There is a tiny caveat, the resources should be extracted in a way that doesn’t substantially degrade the environment or the 100 per cent pure branding of NZ.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10753647
      • Campbell Larsen 46.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 1:30 pm

        Great quotes.
        ‘admass’ – classic : )
47. Afewknowthetruth 47

    3 November 2011 at 10:54 am

    Gosman.

    ‘So you can’t trust the State owned Radio network to engage in proper journalistic practices can you?’

    You can trust the State owned Radio network to defend the international corporate money-lender system (scam). If doing so requires shokey journalistic practices, you can rely on the State owned Radio network to practise them.

    In the ‘bad old days’ when I used to listen to National Radio there was around an hour of pro-business propaganda per day and around 15 minutes of discussion of key environmental issues per week. Presumably that ratio has not changed much in the past six years.
    • gnomic 47.1

      3 November 2011 at 12:55 pm

      Radio New Zealand National as it is known these days is by no means perfect. However it is still the best we’ve got by far, and NZ would be a poorer place without it. Have you listened to any of the other radio stations lately? If you want inanity almost beyond belief or nakedly right wing and pro-business agendas there’s plenty to be had. Let’s get real here; if you want a doomer anti-capitalist radio station you’ll need to start one yourself. The RNZ of today is at least an improvement on the real bad old days (late 80s/early 90s) when the likes of Peter Verschaffelt were preaching the miracle of capitalism constantly. And RNZ is trying to survive under a government which covertly wishes to drown it in the bath tub.
48. randal 48

    3 November 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Great going Phil Goff.
    the debates are piecemeal and not allowed to develop properly.
    and the commentators are telling people who won before they vote on the online polls but despite all that New Zealanders know that only the Labour Party can be trusted to do the job properly.
    So Phil Goff is winning on sincerity points hands down.
    forget the thumb clickers being told what to do by claire robinson.
49. grumpy 49

    3 November 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Even Gordon Campbell does not agree with you Eddie……………….

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/03/gordon-campbell-on-phil-goff%e2%80%99s-debacle-in-christchurch/
    • One Anonymous Bloke 49.1

      3 November 2011 at 1:52 pm

      Campbell is furious with Goff, but he’s not exactly overjoyed with Key either: “Somehow, Goff managed to make Key look like a hard-headed and credible manager of the economy.”

      I like the part where he uses DoL quotes to demolish Brand Key’s minimum wage argument:

      The most common reason for not paying the new entrant’s minimum wage was that the rate was too low, or was not fair, or that the job was skilled… The Mayors Task Force for Jobs submitted that continued minimum wage protection was necessary for young people to encourage employers and others to invest in skills development, particularly in the trades… When young people are working alongside others doing the same work, there seems no justification for lower wages on the grounds of age. Information from Mayors around the country suggests that the level of wages and any increases have not resulted in constraints on job creation for young people, or fewer opportunities for young people. There is no evidence that raising wages has resulted in young people leaving school early.
50. randal 50

    3 November 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Eddie dont worry about gordon f*cking cambell.
    the voters know who won and that is Labour and Phil Goff.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS