Bill your pants may be on fire

Written By: - Date published: 1:48 pm, January 30th, 2018 - 116 comments
Categories: benefits, bill english, child welfare, class war, Economy, jacinda ardern, labour, national, same old national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

All good catholics are aware of the contents of the Ten Commandments, particularly the ninth which prohibits the telling of porkies, even for political gain.  But Bill English might have missed the lesson.

From Radio New Zealand:

National Party leader Bill English told Morning Report the government had offered his party a briefing by officials today – the day the bill is being introduced – so the party has no ability to influence it.

“That’s not a good way to conduct bipartisan approach,” he said.

“As I understand it – and we haven’t seen the legislation – they’re talking about legislating some high-level income targets for which no-one’s particularly accountable.”

Mr English said National would “have a look” at the legislation and wanted to ensure it was “more than symbolism”.

Not a good look if this is true and a briefing is only being offer on the day the bill is going to be introduced.  But wait.  There is more …

From Newshub:

A red-faced Bill English has had to admit the Government wrote to him before Christmas about its plans to reduce child poverty.

Jacinda Ardern wrote to English 48 days ago outlining the key aspects of her child poverty bill and offering a briefing from officials – but English says that doesn’t amount to a bipartisan approach or adequate consultation.

Yesterday the National leader said he’d only just been offered a briefing.

“Well I don’t recall everything that was discussed yesterday, but the letter did come before Christmas. That is not genuine commitment to a bipartisan approach to child poverty.”

His comments come a day after he attacked Labour for taking a symbolic approach to bipartisanship and taking National’s support for the TPP for granted, but conceding the Government had been “a bit more constructive” on child poverty.

But Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says her Government did all it could to keep English in the loop.

“I wrote to Mr English on the 13th December. I offered a briefing to him and at that point also included a one-page summary of the bill [and] he asked for a briefing in the new year.”

Reporter Henry Cooke has released copies of the letters on Scribd.

I am sure that Bill was forgetful rather than being disingenuous.  But this sort of thing saps confidence and will no doubt cause a breakout of BBQ invitations within National’s caucus.

116 comments on “Bill your pants may be on fire”

  1. Ad 1

    Moran!
    Squandered only attack line he had.

    Good hit with 2 hours before Bill is introduced.

  2. ianmac 2

    Just looked at QT today. Paula Bennett looks very different. I believe she as had weight reducing surgery. Must be a huge change for the good for her.
    Paula is next with Question 3 “Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?”
    Oops. Not so much as I thought. Sorry

    • Michelle 2.1

      pulla feels sorry for people that can’t have weight loss surgery but she had no heart or care for many NZers who she hurt with her parties nasty austerity policies. She also had no problem breaching the privacy act and no problem selling our assets and spending millions on motels for homeless people. The level of hate for her and many Maori can’t stand the sight of her.

    • red-blooded 2.2

      Bennett announced a while ago that she’d had weight surgery during the break. Nice to be able to afford to go private, eh?

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 2.3

      Good on her having this surgery if she needed it.

      But notice the contrast – Bennett’s weight was a problem (likely involving addictive behaviour) requiring treatment, while she frames the problems of some beneficiaries / poor people (drug use, smoking, depression) as moral failings, that only require punishment.

      Maybe if she couldn’t lose weight, she should have been treated like a beneficiary with an addiction problem and had her salary stopped for 13 weeks? How would that have worked out for her?

      • Hornet 2.3.1

        “Bennett’s weight was a problem (likely involving addictive behaviour) requiring treatment…”

        Do you have evidence Bennett’s weight problems were “likely involving addictive behaviour”? Or that Bennett framed drug use, smoking or depression as ‘moral failings’?

        • Frank Macskasy 2.3.1.1

          Do you have evidence Bennett’s weight problems were “likely involving addictive behaviour”? Or that Bennett framed drug use, smoking or depression as ‘moral failings’?

          Did Bennett possess evidence of “likely involving addictive behaviour” from welfare beneficiaries?

          • Hornet 2.3.1.1.1

            I don’t know. Did you ask her? My concern is not for Bennett, but for assumptions that head close to fat shaming.

            BTW…loved your post at TDB about handouts to the racing industry. Well written, and a timely reminder about the extent of corporate welfare in NZ.

  3. Robert Guyton 3

    May be? They’ve been aflame for years! Must have asbestos bum cheeks!

  4. rhinocrates 4

    Never trust someone whose hair doesn’t move.

  5. Ross 5

    According to English, Ardern’s letter of December 13 was sent “pretty much on Xmas Eve”. I will have to let my manager know I am not working beond December 13 this year as it’s practically Xmas.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101000666/bill-english-blasts-pathetic-attempt-at-bipartisanship-on-child-poverty-briefing-offered-middecember

  6. McFlock 6

    National. don’t. care. About. Poverty.

    • AB 6.1

      Other people’s poverty is a necessary precondition for their own luxury. So no surprises there.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.2

      Absolutely they don’t. The sheer audacity of the man pretending to give a f*ck for his political ends is sickening.

    • ropata 6.3

      The Nats have an incredibly cynical view of poverty and use it for their own ends.

      To disempower and disconnect masses of potential voters.
      To provide a pool of cheap labour.
      To undermine unions.
      To have an underclass of (mostly brown) people to blame for crime and social ills.
      To perpetuate a new narrative of unfairness and wipe out any remnant of egalitarian thinking from the public mind.

  7. Michelle 7

    How are we expected to believe anything that comes out of bills mouth he either has amnesia or he cant recall or he just lies outright and expects people to believe him.
    And I agree with McFlock the gnats don’t care about poverty heck they helped create it Every time they get in the rich get richer while the poor gets cheap dirty motels and shafted

    • rhinocrates 7.1

      I’m sure Wayne will be along any moment now to tell us that he has a very nice house and his children are well-cared for and therefore there’s no problem.

  8. Janet 8

    She’ll always be [deleted] to me

    [no fat phobia please – weka]

  9. Anon 9

    “not genuine commitment to a bipartisan approach” – and what would he call caring /so much/ that he forgot all about previous correspondence? That’s not even genuine commitment to your inbox.

  10. One Anonymous Bloke 10

    Lying Bill English. What a perfect embodiment of National Party values he is.

  11. NZJester 11

    How many years did they have to do something about it? Now they are criticising this current government for their initial attempts to try and do something with something so important they didn’t even bother with.

  12. Tanz 12

    And by throwing tons of money, willy nilly, poverdy just vanishes does it? Yeah, nah.
    It’s this govt who tells porkies and lies and does backflips, especially when it comes to all their outlandish promises. In the House today, National owned them, again. Winston looked decidedly grumpy, perhaps having second thoughts, now that he is caught up in an obvious shambles. Worst govt in our history…as stated elsewhere.

    • McFlock 12.1

      what you didn’t state was whether you think blinglish lied in this case?

      • Hornet 12.1.1

        Nah, he ‘forgot’.

        Like Materia Turei ‘forgot’ to own up to benefit fraud for over 25 years.

        Like Grant Robertson ‘forgot’ he had public service costings for coalition policies (28th October, TV3, The Nation).

        Like Jacinda Ardern ‘forgot’ that the problems with Auckland’s fuel pipeline go back into the tenure of a Labour government (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96945811/labour-says-national-has-let-down-auckland-over-fuel-vulnerability).

        Apologies for the cynicism. Having a bad day.

        • McFlock 12.1.1.1

          Does the use of single quotes mean that your answer is actually along the lines of “yes he told an outright lie, but Labour did it too”?

          It’s not cynicism you express, it’s blinkered stupidity.

          • Hornet 12.1.1.1.1

            “Does the use of single quotes mean that your answer is actually along the lines of “yes he told an outright lie, but Labour did it too”?”
            No. Metiria Turei (sorry for the spelling error in my last post) is not a Labour Party politician. It’s not that ‘Labour did it too’, it’s that ALL politicians do it too. It’s not always lies of commission (such as NZF claiming cabbages will cost $18 under Labour’s water tax plan). Sometimes it’s just a subtle twisting of the truth (such as Labour claiming NZ had the worst homelessness in the OECD). Sometimes it is lies of omission (let’s see…perhaps Golriz Ghahraman allowing claims that she was “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power…”).

            I don’t trust any of them.

            • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1.1

              Trust is one thing.

              False equivalence is another thing entirely.

              • Hornet

                I don’t think you understand the term. What are the two opposing arguments?

                • McFlock

                  Blinglish lied about his job, probably because he couldn’t explain why he hadn’t done it.
                  Robertson lied about his partner’s presence, probably because his partner didn’t want to be on telly that night.

                  The first occurs, you have an attack of whataboutitis on the second, as if the two are at all equivalent.

                  • Hornet

                    As I thought, you don’t understand what a false equivalence is.

                    Both lied. There is no false equivalence.

                    • McFlock

                      But the two lies are fundamentally different. As you probably know (although you really might be that thick)

                    • Hornet

                      “But the two lies are fundamentally different. ”

                      No, they aren’t. They are both lies.

                    • McFlock

                      “But the two lies are fundamentally different. ”

                      No, they aren’t. They are both lies.

                      That was pretty much the Kevin Spacey defense.

                    • Hornet

                      “That was pretty much the Kevin Spacey defense.”

                      Whereas you’re relying on the Bill Clinton defence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc.

                    • McFlock

                      Even if that were true (it’s not), Spacey lost his job (and who knows what else if charges are pressed).

                      Clinton didn’t.

                      You might want to try another lie.

                    • Hornet

                      “Clinton didn’t.”

                      So whether or not someone lost their job is now your moral determinant?

                    • McFlock

                      No, it’s an demonstration of differences between lies and what they are about.

                      Lies are lies, but all lies are different. Hence distracting from blinglish’s lies by bringing up trivial lies from (or even lying about) other MPs is itself a bit of a lie, you lying liar, you…

                    • Hornet

                      “No, it’s an demonstration of differences between lies and what they are about.”
                      Whether or not the liar lost their job? I that seriously a point on your moral compass?

                      “Hence distracting from blinglish’s lies by bringing up trivial lies from (or even lying about) other MPs is itself a bit of a lie, you lying liar, you…”
                      I’m not ‘distracting’ from anything. My point is that politicians lie. Politicians of all stripes lie. Your refusal to accept those on your preferred side of the political spectrum also lie is a testament to your naivety.

                    • McFlock

                      now you’re lying about what I said.

                    • Hornet

                      “now you’re lying about what I said.”

                      No, I’m not. But that seems to be your standard defence to being caught in an indefensible position.

                    • McFlock

                      No, when your lies get exposed you simply start lying about what the other person said.

                    • Hornet

                      “No, when your lies get exposed you simply start lying about what the other person said.”

                      Yet you still can’t give an example.

                    • McFlock

                      “Your refusal to accept those on your preferred side of the political spectrum also lie”

                      I accepted Grant Robertson lied about whether someone he knew was at the pub. I just don’t give a shit.

                      Apology, please.

                    • Hornet

                      “I accepted Grant Robertson lied about whether someone he knew was at the pub. I just don’t give a shit.”

                      Exactly. Your minimisation of one lie over another (‘someone he knew’), as also evidenced in your pathetic attempt to cover for Golriz (although your defence of Metiria has been conspicuous for its absence – I’ll grant you that), just demonstrates your moral compass is broken.

                      And I’m still waiting for your example of where I lied.

                    • McFlock

                      That’s 4 comments in a row where you’ve lied.

                    • Hornet

                      ‘That’s 4 comments in a row where you’ve lied.”

                      And every time you say that, without substantiation, you lie. But then you support liars and those who seek to limit freedom of speech.

                    • McFlock

                      It’s perfectly possible to say a true statement without bothering to substantiate it.

                      So that’s 5 lying comments you’ve made in a row, with two substantiations.

                    • Hornet

                      “It’s perfectly possible to say a true statement without bothering to substantiate it. ”

                      But when you are challenged to substantiate it, and can’t, then that just suggests you are a liar.

                      So far your record is:
                      Defending liars.
                      Supporting the suppression of free speech.

                    • McFlock

                      You actually made a point, and if I cared what suggestions you took from my comments it might even have been valid.

                      But then you had to again misrepresent what I say. tsk

                      6:2.

                      Half a dozen lies in a row. You should be in the national party caucus.

                    • Hornet

                      “But then you had to again misrepresent what I say.”

                      Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

                    • McFlock

                      Well, everyone can read your comments above in the subthread, but within my comment itself, yes, there was no substantiation.

                      You actually managed to state a fact and not lie.

                      So that’s half a dozen lies you told in a row. Good for you. kthxbai

                    • Hornet

                      “You actually managed to state a fact and not lie.”

                      So, just to clarify…you accused me of lying, but couldn’t substantiate it. Yes everyone can see you for what you are.

                    • McFlock

                      I did too – here and here.

                    • Hornet

                      “I did too – here and here.”

                      Neither are lies. Why don’t you actually set out the comment, not just link to your own delusions.

                      Meanwhile, you are still defending liars.

                    • McFlock

                      I can’t tell if you’re genuinely that fucking stupid. You’re like a traffic accident involving a truckload of pikachu toys and a schoolbus – it’s obviously tragic, but nobody knows what’s going to happen next…

                    • Hornet

                      “…but nobody knows what’s going to happen next…”

                      Oh I know what happens next. You run away and pretend no-ones noticed you made an accusation you couldn’t follow through with.

                    • McFlock

                      translation: I get bored trying to dumb it down enough for you not not just understand that I acknowledged in this argument that Robertson told a fib, so therefore your claim that I refuse “to accept those on your preferred side of the political spectrum also lie” was itself a lie about what I do or do not accept.

                      So I wander off and you take that as a victory, when in actual fact your stupidity has gone from being entertaining to merely painful. You’re so Dunning-Kruger, I bet you think that syndrome can’t be about you.

                    • Hornet

                      “so therefore your claim that I refuse “to accept those on your preferred side of the political spectrum also lie” was itself a lie about what I do or do not accept.”

                      No it wasn’t. I referenced not only Robertson, but also Ardern and Turei, and you haven’t once admitted they lied. Yours is the worst kind of denial, because it is shrouded in obfuscation and personal abuse towards anyone who points it out.

                    • McFlock

                      you didn’t “reference” a thing. You made some claims, one of which I accepted, the others were bunk.

                      But I did accept that someone on my side of the political spectrum lied. Apology, please.

                    • Hornet

                      “you didn’t “reference” a thing.”
                      Yes, I did. https://thestandard.org.nz/bill-your-pants-may-be-on-fire/#comment-1441485. But I should have realised you hadn’t read it properly when you tried to claim a false equivalence.

                      “But I did accept that someone on my side of the political spectrum lied.”
                      ‘Someone’. I didn’t singularise it. My comment said “Your refusal to accept those on your preferred side of the political spectrum also lie” (you quoted me at https://thestandard.org.nz/bill-your-pants-may-be-on-fire/#comment-1441933). ‘Those’.

                      It seems you struggle for comprehension and honesty.

                    • McFlock

                      But I do accept that those on my side also lie, GR being a case in point.

                      I just don’t accept that every claim you made about lying is true. E.g. the link you provided about fuel lines made no mention of ardern forgetting a thing. but then I don’t expect you to know the difference between a report that outlines a vulnerability, and a later paper that outlines the same vulnerability and provides a solution which is then rejected.

                      Working through the process to do something isn’t the same as refusing to do something.

                      But my rejection of most of your claims of lying has nothing to do with sides, it’s because your claims are themselves lies. Because you’re a lying liar from liarland.

                    • Hornet

                      “But I do accept that those on my side also lie…”
                      That’s the first time.

                      “, GR being a case in point. ”
                      I know. You don’t think saying something you know to be incorrect is a lie. Moral. Vacuum.

                    • McFlock

                      🙄

                      It’s really sweet when tory parrots learn a new term and still don’t know what basic words like “first” or “know” mean.

                      Nothing in your comment reflects the last few days, where my first comments after your distraction (from bill lying about his incompetence in the job) acknowledged Robertson lied, and yet you still said I refused to admit people on my side of the political fence lie.

                      Bill lied about why he didn’t do his job as leader of the oppisition.
                      Grant lied about whether his partner was at the pub.

                      These things are not the same. If you think they are, you are a shallow husk of a human being. If you know they are not the same yet you are willing to pretend you’re an idiot in order to defend bill’s incompetent duplicity, you really are a pitiable fool.

                    • Hornet

                      “Nothing in your comment reflects the last few days, where my first comments after your distraction (from bill lying about his incompetence in the job) acknowledged Robertson lied…”

                      But not the others I noted. ‘Those’ v ‘someone’. Note it.

                      “…and yet you still said I refused to admit people on my side of the political fence lie.”

                      You did. Until your last previous post.

                      Now your just explaining. And explaining is losing. And tiresome.

                    • McFlock

                      lol

                      complains about lack of substantiation, receives substantiation, says “explaining is losing”.

                    • Hornet

                      “complains about lack of substantiation, receives substantiation, says “explaining is losing”.”

                      You haven’t provided any substantiation. That’s why you tried to explain your way out of it.

        • Naki man 12.1.1.2

          Here Grant Robertson forgot about Alf being at the pub with him.

          • McFlock 12.1.1.2.1

            Thing is:
            1: keeping your personal life personal is not the same as coming up with excuses why you didn’t do your job; and

            2: he got shit for that at the time, and you’re using it as a distraction to protect blinglish from getting shit from a lie that pertains directly to his job.

            Fucking tories…

            • Hornet 12.1.1.2.1.1

              He wasn’t ‘keeping his personal life personal’. He said Alf wasn’t there. But Alf was there, wasn’t he? What’s that called?

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                It’s called “Maninthemiddle looking like a total loser because of his shit ethics and arguments”.

                • Hornet

                  Who the hell is ‘maninthemiddle’?

                  And what does he/she have to do with Grant lying?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Oh sorry, my ‘mistake’.

                    It’s called “Hornet looking like a total loser because of their shit ethics and arguments”.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    past contributors

                    You all look the same to me.

                    And no, you haven’t made your case, no matter how very very hard you believe it. Someone else might be able to make it, but your arguments are too shit.

                    • Hornet

                      What case? What is this ‘case’ I am trying to make? Was Alf there or not? Did Golriz allow claims that she was “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power…” or not? Did Metiria hide benefit fraud for 25 years or not?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Yes. I’m convinced: you don’t just look the same.

                    • Hornet

                      So you agree they all lied?

                    • McFlock

                      All the past contributors OAB mentioned lied in your style before picking up a ban, yes.

                      Unlike all the “lies” you attribute to labgrn, which either weren’t lies at all or had nothing to do with their job as politicians. Unlike Bill, who lied about why he didn’t do his job.

                    • Hornet

                      “All the past contributors OAB mentioned lied in your style before picking up a ban, yes. ”

                      Can you point to a single lie I have told? You may be right about the other contributors, I really don’t know or care. But I do challenge your statement about this poster, and ask you to support your claim..

                    • McFlock

                      Most of the comments in this thread where you talked about other people lying.

                      GG didn’t “lie by omission”, for example.

                    • Hornet

                      “GG didn’t “lie by omission”, for example.”

                      Allowing a comment on her Parties website that claimed she was “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power…” when she was actually defending them is lying by omission.

                    • McFlock

                      No it’s not.
                      Firstly, being part of the defense was part of the tribunal process.

                      Secondly, even if the phrasing were misleading then it’s only a lie if she noted poor wording and still let it through. Given that she is rightfully proud of her record as part of those tribunals, that’s not realistic.

                      This was thoroughly debated at the time, so your repetition of the “she lied” falsehood must be intentional.

                      You’re lying again.

                    • Hornet

                      “Firstly, being part of the defense was part of the tribunal process.”
                      I’m not talking about her part in the tribunal process. I’m talking about the claim she was “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power…”

                      “Secondly, even if the phrasing were misleading then it’s only a lie if she noted poor wording and still let it through.”
                      The comment appeared on her Green Party profile.

                      I would also point out (http://www.nziia.org.nz/Portals/285/documents/lists/259/Speech%20-%20NZIIA%20(James%20Shaw)%20-%2030%20May%2017%20(Final).pdf) that in a speech James Shaw said this:

                      “Having fled Iran in 1990 as a child, Golriz is now a human rights lawyer who worked as a prosecutor at the United Nations tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. ”

                      There seems to have been an awful lot of ‘forgetting’.

                    • McFlock

                      No forgetting by her. Where people’s descriptions of her background were identified as misleading and it was brought to her attention, she corrected them. But even the reporters who ended up having ‘misleading’ bios of GG published were clear that in their interviews with her she was clear – and proud of – what her roles were in the different tribunals.

                      And you’re confusing a UN tribunal defense team with hollywood’s (or the 1%’s) idea of defense lawyers. The defense people are part of putting people on trial and holding them to account by helping ensure the process is neutral and fair.

                      But you don’t have a truth to use as a bat, so you’ll just keep repeating your slur on her professional reputation.

                    • Hornet

                      ‘Where people’s descriptions of her background were identified as misleading and it was brought to her attention, she corrected them.”
                      Why did she have to wait until she had it ‘brought to her attention’? And by ‘brought to her attention’, do you mean exposed by the media?

                      “But even the reporters who ended up having ‘misleading’ bios of GG published were clear that in their interviews with her she was clear – and proud of – what her roles were in the different tribunals”
                      And the Green Party bio? James Shaw’s speech?

                      “And you’re confusing a UN tribunal defense team with hollywood’s (or the 1%’s) idea of defense lawyers. The defense people are part of putting people on trial and holding them to account by helping ensure the process is neutral and fair.”
                      Being a defence lawyer is not about “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power…” . If it was, the comment would not have been removed.

              • McFlock

                Alf is his partner, nothing to do with Grant’s job. To this day Grant still gets shit for it from people like you.

                Bill lied about why he wasn’t doing his job.

                You are using the first to try to excuse the second.

                Because you are a lowlife.

                • Hornet

                  “Alf is his partner, nothing to do with Grant’s job.”
                  So why did he lie about Alf being there?

                  “Bill lied about why he wasn’t doing his job. You are using the first to try to excuse the second.”
                  No, I’m not. Although this continued communication is revealing your hypocrisy.

                  • McFlock

                    So why did he lie about Alf being there?

                    Maybe they were worried about some stalker little shit like you doxing him. Maybe Alf had a hangover or was a bit drunk. Who cares? It’s none of our businesss because it had nothing to do with Robertson’s job.

                    Bill English was lying about why he didn’t do his job. You brought up robertsons lie about his personal life for a reason: what was it?

                    • Hornet

                      “Maybe they were worried about some stalker little shit like you doxing him.”

                      By telling the truth that Alf was in the pub?

                      “Who cares? It’s none of our businesss because it had nothing to do with Robertson’s job.”

                      So what you’re saying is that it was ok for Robertson to lie, because you don’t think it had anything to do with his job. So any politician can lie, as long as it is totally unrelated to their job. Mmmm. Well that’s convenient for Metiria, not so much for Golriz.

                    • McFlock

                      Who knows what you lot get up to when you get one of these funny ideas in your head.

                      And GG didn’t lie about her work record. Not even by ommission.

                      Lying might not be entirely “ok”, but trivial lies about your personal life aren’t at all relevant to lies about why you didn’t do your job. By your understanding, it might even be a lie to raise a trivial lie when someone is being criticised for not doing their job…

                    • Hornet

                      “And GG didn’t lie about her work record. Not even by ommission.”
                      Yes, she did. When she allowed her profile to read that she was “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power…” she conveniently forgot to mention she was defending those bastards!

                      “Lying might not be entirely “ok”, but trivial lies about your personal life aren’t at all relevant to lies about why you didn’t do your job.”
                      Why is such a lie trivial? By whose measure is it trivial?

                    • McFlock

                      Whether Alf goes to the pub on a particular night is as important as why National weren’t at the table to develop legislative requirements for the New Zealand government budget?

                      Jesus. I hope he doesn’t have a tendency towards egotism.

                    • Hornet

                      “Whether Alf goes to the pub on a particular night is as important as why National weren’t at the table to develop legislative requirements for the New Zealand government budget”

                      It is important in so far as Robertson lied about it.

                      It is a curious lie too. So unnecessary.

                    • McFlock

                      whatever, dude. I’ve spent enough time on your own lies.

                      You’re a disingenuous little shit who’s either stupid to the point of repugnance or repugnant to the point of stupidity. I don’t really care which.

                    • Hornet

                      “whatever, dude. I’ve spent enough time on your own lies. ”

                      Which I’ve asked you to name and you can’t.

                      So you support suppression of free speech, and defend liars.

          • Ed 12.1.1.2.2

            Du Plessis-Allan.
            Your source….

    • Craig H 12.2

      Basically, yes, lots of money works as a way to reduce poverty, especially material hardship.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3

      Hi Tanz.

      Bill is thrashing around in the water. Read Soper in The Herald. That’s blood you can taste. Have a lovely day 😈

  13. Venezia 13

    Watching re run of QT. Jacinda is outstanding in speaking to the proposed bill on reducing child poverty. Bill English is pathetic. Paula Bennet is running same old lines.

    • McFlock 13.1

      that bit about people not caring if they don’t have his arbitrary targets was cringeworthy.

      They spent half their fucking term in office denying it exists, now they try to get the moral high ground.

      • Incognito 13.1.1

        They only care about the targets; nice clean ledger numbers, not people.

        • McFlock 13.1.1.1

          nice, clean, riggable ledger numbers.

          That’s the real reason the nats are pissed at losing their “targets” – targets are achievable if the counting is rigged.

  14. patricia bremner 14

    Tanz, that is unmitigated rubbish. Bill English flat out lied, then fudged.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    13 hours ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    2 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    2 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    1 week ago