Ever wonder why people call John Key “slippery”?

Written By: - Date published: 7:37 pm, December 6th, 2007 - 77 comments
Categories: john key, spin - Tags: ,

Here he is being interviewed by Paul Henry on Breakfast earlier today. Key tries to slip out of answering a direct question not once, not twice, but SIX times. Notice that Key tries his pre-rehearsed “precious” line twice to start with. When it’s rejected, the slipperiness really begins in earnest.

PRESENTER: Um, alright and very quickly I just want to come back to my first question to you, do you regret now, bringing Michael Cullen’s wife in to the House?

KEY: Look I think Michael Cullen shouldn’t be so precious.

PRESENTER: Do you regret it?

KEY: I think that, I think Michael Cullen shouldn’t be so precious.

PRESENTER: But you’re not answering my question, do you regret bringing…

KEY: Well, look, I mean, if I’d said something derogatory, I would be, of course I would be offended by that but I didn’t. It’s a statement of fact.

PRESENTER: So you don’t, so you don’t regret it?

KEY: Well it’s a statement of fact that his wife’s signed his form.

PRESENTER: But you’re actually not answering the question, are you, John? I mean either you regret it or you don’t.

KEY: Well, you know, I don’t think it’s a derogatory statement. If it was derogatory, I would regret it. I don’t think it’s derogatory.

PRESENTER: You don’t regret it?

KEY: Well I don’t think it’s derogatory. I think in, in the overall bounds of debate, it’s hardly something that’s offensive. If it was offensive, I’d apologise for it.

77 comments on “Ever wonder why people call John Key “slippery”? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dean 1
    6 December 2007 at 7:56 pm

    It’s no more rehearsed than “cencerous and corrosive”, or especially “I don’t think I need to apologize”.

    Supporters of people in glass houses really shouldn’t throw stones.

  2. Alex Freeman 2
    6 December 2007 at 8:08 pm

    I need a shower after watching that. What a gutless ‘leader’.

  3. the sprout 3
    6 December 2007 at 8:13 pm

    why can’t he just say sorry?
    Alex, ‘leader’ is over-doing it a bit. still, at least he’s consistent – can anyone remember the last time Key’s appeared in the media and not totally fucked it up?

  4. sicoff 4
    6 December 2007 at 8:15 pm

    if he’d been such an arsehole in the pub i’d give him a bloody mallarding for sure….

    wimpy middle class twat!

  5. Alex Freeman 5
    6 December 2007 at 8:22 pm

    I can’t wait for the televised debates next year. He is going to flounder.

  6. the sprout 6
    6 December 2007 at 8:25 pm

    he’s going to be a flounder

    well… he obviously lies like a flat fish.

  7. Dean 7
    6 December 2007 at 8:26 pm

    “if he’d been such an arsehole in the pub i’d give him a bloody mallarding for sure..”

    Im glad to see that violence is excused now as long as its all in the cause of the party.

    Tane has expressed his disgust with Mallard, and quite rightly.

    Meanwhile the rest of you are content to be everything you profess to dislike – the “left” wing equivalent of kiwiblog commenters.

    Do you get a special prize at Christmas or something?

  9. Billy 9
    6 December 2007 at 8:50 pm

    You guys have just run out of stuff, haven’t you. Admit it.

    And Cullen is clearly rattled. Not since he blamed reporters for being mean to him because they wanted a tax cut has he let the mask slip so badly.

  10. Billy 10
    6 December 2007 at 8:51 pm

    And no-one calls him slippery. “Ever wondered why people say Tane fucks goats?”

  11. the sprout 11
    6 December 2007 at 8:55 pm

    billy goats

  12. Alex Freeman 12
    6 December 2007 at 9:00 pm

    You’re great Sprout.

  13. Tane 13
    6 December 2007 at 9:17 pm

    The right can try and distract all they like, and they can talk about me fucking goats or whatever it is that pleases them, but the fact remains that John Key’s a slippery character. He can’t answer a straight question and he can’t take personal responsibility for his actions. Hardly leadership material.

  14. Billy 14
    6 December 2007 at 9:22 pm

    Tane, to clarify (and because I am a sensitive person myself) I did not mean to imply that you fuck goats (Billy or otherwise). I was just illustrating that you post took for granted that everyone says he’s slippery. And they don’t.

    By the way, did you hear Helen’s Muldoon-like cackling at question time yesterday. Creepy.

  15. Tane 15
    6 December 2007 at 9:22 pm

    Oh and Billy, lots of people call John slippery. I hear it all the time. We must hang in different circles.

  16. Billy 16
    6 December 2007 at 9:25 pm

    You should hear what people in my circles say about Helen.

  17. ragtag 17
    6 December 2007 at 9:33 pm

    Dats rite all your base if sum1 repeatedly asks you the same question with the same premise then you have to capitulate and accept that premise. But hey I really do respect you arse of base; it takes a real brave person to utter such crap in public.

  18. Tane 18
    6 December 2007 at 9:33 pm

    I did not mean to imply that you fuck goats (Billy or otherwise).

    Billy, I know you didn’t mean it.

    I was just illustrating that you post took for granted that everyone says he’s slippery. And they don’t.

    Well, I didn’t write this post, but it doesn’t assume everyone calls Key ‘slippery’. It says ‘people’. And people do – I’ve heard it plenty of times.

    You should hear what people in my circles say about Helen.

    I have heard it. They do it every day over at the bog and it’s frankly disgusting. There’s a good post that touches on the mysogynistic hatred of women in power over at the sprout and the bean:

    http://thesproutandthebean.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/i'm-not-sexist-some-of-my-girlfriends-are-women/

    And there’s another post that deals more specifically about National’s treatment of Clark over here:

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/09/04/the-taunts-of-homophobes/

  19. CMR 19
    6 December 2007 at 9:34 pm

    Key is NOT slippery, he is bland, boring, inept,clumsy etc and in 2008 will forfeit electoral success to the Clarxists. Like numerous Nat leaders before him he seeks to appeal to a broad spectrum (his words) of “middle of the road” voters. If he wants to be in the middle of the road, somebody, anybody run this loser over!

    Unconditional disdain for both major parties is easy to nurture and nourish when confronted by the abilities (yeah right) presently on the hustings.

  20. Billy 20
    6 December 2007 at 9:39 pm

    CMR, you have an unusual prose style. I wonder, were you home schooled?

  21. Billy 21
    6 December 2007 at 9:40 pm

    And Tane, even you must have noticed that that cackle of Helen’s sounded very like Muldoon.

  22. Dean 22
    6 December 2007 at 9:41 pm

    “I have heard it. They do it every day over at the bog and it’s frankly disgusting. There’s a good post that touches on the mysogynistic hatred of women in power over at the sprout and the bean”

    It may be mysoginstic to a lot of people out there, but you have to admit Clark has come out with some real old fashioned divisive good old hatred filled statements of her own.

  23. Tane 23
    6 December 2007 at 9:52 pm

    Billy, I didn’t see it. I’m not sure what I’be supposed to take from it if I did.

    I suspect CMR is an Objectivist. They tend to ape Ayn Rand’s style, while the ones in NZ tend to ape Lindsay Perigo, who in turn apes Ayn Rand. It’s all a little cultish for my taste.

    Dean, I’m sure in eight years of govt you’ll find some statements with which you disagree. I don’t think Clark’s been known for being a divisive leader, if anything she’s aimed for unity. You want divisive, try National’s iwi/kiwi billboards and the Orewa speeches.

  24. CMR 24
    6 December 2007 at 10:00 pm

    Billy said “CMR you have an unusual prose style,” It is generally, at least in my circle, accepted as literacy. Rare for you is it…?

  25. Dean 25
    6 December 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Tane, just because National were divisive doesn’t mean it’s tit for tat with Labour.

    Labour have gotten to the point where it’s ok to ruin individual people under parliamentary priviledge, and to my mind that’s reason enough to send them a clear message. As you’ve already agreed, Mallard ought to be hung out to dry, yet you’re the only one with enough courage in your convictions to say so on this site.

    Of course there’s Helen, willing to let police officers hang out to dry over the speeding motorcade incident, her apparent inability to recall several incidents which might have been embarassing, completely unwilling to do anything about Taito Phillip Field, and still continues to entertain Mallard.

    In my opinion it’s time to send a message to this government that they need to return to their cor principles. It’ll do them the world of good.

  26. the bean 26
    6 December 2007 at 10:12 pm

    cor principles huh? you believe them to be pirates? or cockney?

  27. Billy 27
    6 December 2007 at 10:15 pm

    “I’m not sure what I’be supposed to take from it if I did.”

    This: it’s not just the cackle that they share.

  28. Tane 28
    6 December 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Dean, you get this kind of thing in every party. John Key still tolerates John Carter, a man who famously rang talkback pretending to be a dole-bludging Maori called Hone. There are plenty more stories where that came from. Key himself has engaged in dodgy behaviour, and in the last election played a large role in the National/Brethren election rort.

    But it’s not on these issues that my vote is decided. The thing that matters to me is whether we live in a fair and equitable society where everyone has an equal opportunity in life, the economy is strong and the environment is protected. The scandal of the week doesn’t really factor into the equation.

    My interest, when you break it right down, is in whether working families can put food on the table and a roof over their heads. And when I weigh up the policies of a Labour-led govt vs. a National-led govt it’s really no contest.

  29. Billy 29
    6 December 2007 at 10:24 pm

    “The thing that matters to me is whether we live in a fair and equitable society wher everyone has an equal opportunity in life, the economy is strong and the environment is protected. The scandal of the week doesn’t really factor into the equation.”

    Fair enough. But how come this blog is almost solely devoted to how mcuh the dvd cost, then whether it was Coldaply in the dvd, then, if it is not, whether it sounds like Coldplay?

    If what “matters” to you is whether we live in “a fair and equitable society” how come you always bang on about the petty politics?

  30. Dean 30
    6 December 2007 at 10:26 pm

    “cor principles huh? you believe them to be pirates? or cockney?”

    Newsflash: people make typos. News at 11.

    “But it’s not on these issues that my vote is decided. The thing that matters to me is whether we live in a fair and equitable society where everyone has an equal opportunity in life, the economy is strong and the environment is protected. The scandal of the week doesn’t really factor into the equation.”

    It factors into the equation when it’s a scandal for National though, doesn’t it?

  31. Billy 31
    6 December 2007 at 10:26 pm

    Dunno what happened with the double post. Can you fix it? Can you change “ang” to “bang” while you’re about it?

    [Tane: Done and done. Don’t say we’re not good to you Billy, even if you do have the hots for Robinsod]

  32. Dean 32
    6 December 2007 at 10:32 pm

    Billy said:
    “Fair enough. But how come this blog is almost solely devoted to how mcuh the dvd cost, then whether it was Coldaply in the dvd, then, if it is not, whether it sounds like Coldplay?”

    I suspect it’s the same reason so many blogs are whining on about the EFB.

  33. Tane 33
    6 December 2007 at 10:32 pm

    Because, Billy, that’s the way politics works. It’s not like a high school debate where each side lays out their arguments and everyone decides what’s best. It’s a murky world of spin, deception and intrigue, and National is playing that game very well at the moment. They’re pulling the wool over the public’s eyes and using poll-driven, focus group tested slogans in place of policy or rational argument.

    I don’t like it, I think it’s dishonest, and I’d like to show people what’s really happening behind the spin. That’s where posts like these come from:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=652
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=527
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=441
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=603

    Other times, we just attack the spin head-on. Other times we talk about random cool stuff we find or about stuff we’d like to see happen. It’s a random collective effort that we put together in our spare time, and what you see is the result of that. If you don’t like it there’s an easy answer, but in general it’s good to have you around. Intelligent righties are hard to find so we like to hold onto ours.

  34. Tane 34
    6 December 2007 at 10:39 pm

    Billy, as for ‘whining on’ about the DVD, get some perspective dude. We (along with KBB) broke this story into the media and sank John Key’s absurd propaganda tour. Don’t you think that was a worthwhile series, at least from our point of view?

  35. r0b 35
    6 December 2007 at 10:41 pm

    If what “matters” to you is whether we live in “a fair and equitable society” how come you always ang on about the petty politics?

    Who’s to say what is petty and what isn’t? Righties thought the Coldplay thing was petty, until all of a sudden it wasn’t.

    So The Standard does some seriously good stats and analysis, a good smattering of environmental, threads even get into philosophy, or whatever you like. “Petty politics” is part of the mix, but its also (and I don’t like it either) a big part of the battle these days. A lot of the focus on the petty stuff is as a result of the “success” of Kiwiblog. The NZ blogging space needed a smart, active, and successful balance on the left of the spectrum. Enter The Standard. Excellent.

  36. Dean 36
    6 December 2007 at 10:43 pm

    “Billy, as for ‘whining on’ about the DVD, get some perspective dude. We (along with KBB) broke this story into the media and sunk John Key’s absurd propaganda tour.”

    I wonder if this site had been around at the time wether or not it would have broke the story about Clark’s absurd “I don’t remember” propaganda regarding the speeding debacle or “by definition I cannot leak”.

    Hell, you could even make a post regarding Erin Leigh, but you seem to be uninterested in that subject. I can imagine it it had been National at the helm that disinterest might have been a lot weaker.

  37. Dean 37
    6 December 2007 at 10:46 pm

    “A lot of the focus on the petty stuff is as a result of the “success” of Kiwiblog.”

    And you guys were right to bring David Farrar’s “independant” status to the fore. I hope that sinks in and gets more press.

  38. r0b 38
    6 December 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Dean, it’s a left wing blog, of course it focuses on left wing topics.

    Quick question for you – have you ever chided DPF for talking up right wing successes and ignoring right wing failures? If not – why not?

  39. r0b 39
    6 December 2007 at 10:52 pm

    “And you guys were right to bring David Farrar’s “independant” status to the fore. I hope that sinks in and gets more press.”

    I’d like to see every political commentator come with a full disclaimer. DPF, Chris Trotter – whoever.

  40. gobsmacked 40
    6 December 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Key’s problem is that his strength is rapidly becoming his weakness.

    He has a chatty, personable manner, and a lot of people warm to that. Nice guy to have a beer and a yarn with, is the initial impression. Unfortunately, when the media move from soft chat to interrogation, he continues in that same inoffensive but insubstantial vein, and he starts to sound vague and waffly. Pleasantly vague, but vague nonetheless.

    There’s no way he can keep that up for a year, even with our fluff’n’puff media. If, like most of the Western world, we had a regular in-depth interview programme on TV, and a razor-sharp inquisitor, he’d be toast.

    Imagine John Key facing Jeremy Paxman. Ouch.

  41. Dean 41
    6 December 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Rob, that’s a fair question. And the answer is no I haven’t because I’d be drowned out in the sea of bullshit over there.

    Although I did just tell D4J to take his chill pills, albeit in a more PC format of course.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think this blog is great. Apart from a few people who type before they think of course, but what blog is without those these days? This one is better than most in that regard. And I enjoy the mostly healthy debate here, which is the reason I post here instead of at KiwiTroll.

  42. r0b 42
    6 December 2007 at 10:59 pm

    Rob, that’s a fair question. And the answer is no I haven’t because I’d be drowned out in the sea of bullshit over there.

    And I appreciate the fair answer. You are right of course, you would be.

    And I enjoy the mostly healthy debate here, which is the reason I post here instead of at KiwiTroll.

    We’re agreed on that too!

    And if you’re looking for honest lefties, for the record I think Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and co have made the odd hasty stupid comment over the years. (I also think that they are, after all, human, and after being in the most stressful jobs in the country for 8 years they have damn few slip ups). I also thing that Trevor needs to seriously chill.

  43. Robinsod 43
    6 December 2007 at 11:07 pm

    rOb – I don’t think you’re the only one. In some ways the private prosecution of Mallard is particularly vindictive as he has already had a lot to deal with this year. That said he has lived by the sword. I’d imagine there a few people in the Labour caucus who are hoping he holds it together until Christmas break.

  44. r0b 44
    6 December 2007 at 11:16 pm

    “In some ways the private prosecution of Mallard is particularly vindictive”

    Damn straight. Calling him out politically is fair game, but this is nasty.

  45. Insolent Prick 45
    6 December 2007 at 11:20 pm

    Michael Cullen is being precious.

    When his wife, a former Labour MP, nominates Russell Fairbrother in 2002 for a seat that largely incorporates her former electorate, and Cullen nominates a challenger to Fairbrother’s seat in 2007, that IS news.

    By the way, Tane, while you’re getting on your high, very precious horse about this, you might want to consider that it was actually Russell Fairbrother who brought Anne Collins into the debate. Yes, read his maiden speech, in 2003:

    “To Anne Collins, a former member of this House, and her most humble husband, and to her family, my appreciation defies expression…”. Yes, that’s right. Fairbrother’s maiden speech doesn’t even MENTION Michael Cullen by name. Only his wife.

    You can read it all at http://text.labour.org.nz/RussellFairbrother/speeches_and_releases/speech12/index.html

  46. r0b 46
    6 December 2007 at 11:35 pm

    I remember Bill English getting a bit precious earlier this year. I remember Don Brash getting a bit precious last year.

    Not.

    Cullen, English, Brash, all had a point. Leave families out of it. You should leave them out of it too IP.

  47. Insolent Prick 47
    6 December 2007 at 11:40 pm

    Russell Fairbrother wasn’t the only MP to mention Anne Collins in the House. Ruth Dyson brought her into the debate in 2004, tributing her with bringing about an end to corporal punishment in schools.

    Fascinating how Anne Collins is feted by Labour MPs as a fine contributor to Labour’s heritage in her own right, but is merely Michael Cullen’s wife when John Key mentions her.

    What next? Bill Clinton is merely Hillary’s husband?

  48. Insolent Prick 48
    6 December 2007 at 11:42 pm

    r0b:

    Bill English’s wife isn’t a former MP to nominate a National MP one election, only to have her husband nominate a challenger to that MP in the next election.

    Nor was Don Brash’s wife a former MP to nominate a National MP one election, only to have her husband nominate a challenger to that MP in the next election.

  49. illuminatedtiger 49
    6 December 2007 at 11:58 pm

    Finally. Paul Henry grows some balls.

  50. Gruela 50
    7 December 2007 at 12:08 am

    True point, illuminatedtiger. This is the second interview I’ve seen where Henry really gives Key a hard time. Obviously he’s in the Bill English camp

  51. r0b 51
    7 December 2007 at 12:17 am

    It’s not even possible to discuss this with you, IP, without making the same mistake of dragging families into it. So this is my last comment on the issue of families in politics. Actually, it’s your comment. Goodnight.

    On Kiwiblog:

    Insolent Prick Says:
    September 13th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
    I would say that if Labour think they will get away with dragging Don Brash and his family through the mud, they are seriously mistaken.

    I find it utterly disgusting that Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Pete Hodgson and Trevor Mallard have seen fit to target somebody’s personal life.

  52. Insolent Prick 52
    7 December 2007 at 12:20 am

    What John Key SHOULD have said is:

    “I’m not going to apologise, Paul, because Michael Cullen is just being precious. I wasn’t bringing his wife into the debate. His wife is a former Labour MP, and Labour MPs bring her into the debate whenever they want to celebrate her contribution to the Labour Party. I merely pointed out that Anne Collins nominated Russell Fairbrother in 2002, and Michael Cullen nominated a challenger to Fairbrother this year. Michael Cullen is just trying to justify throwing a wobbly, because his party has got so nasty of late.”

    There, Tane. Satisfied?

  53. Insolent Prick 53
    7 December 2007 at 12:34 am

    r0b:

    John Key didn’t drag former Labour MP Anne Collins through the mud. Mallard, Hodgson, Benson-Pope, and Cullen most unequivocally did drag Don Brash and his family through the mud.

    The difference is between private conduct and public conduct. If, for example, Prime Minister John Key appointed his wife to the board of an SOE, that would be grounds for public comment. If the leader of the opposition’s husband, Peter Davis, writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper advocating a political position, that is suitable grounds for public comment. If the spouse of the deputy prime minister nominates somebody for public office, that is grounds for public comment.

    Anne Collins’ nomination of Russell Fairbrother was not a private act.

    David Benson-Pope’s sexual behaviour is private activity. Frankly, I’ve never wanted to know what David Benson-Pope does behind closed doors, and I’ve never approved of the scandal-mongering that Ian Wishart has engaged in. I don’t care if a Minister is an in-the-closet lesbian. They can do what they like, and they’re entitled to privacy.

    But if you can’t see the difference between public and private behaviour, then you’re living on a very unusual planet.

  54. The Prophet 54
    7 December 2007 at 6:38 am

    He has a chatty, personable manner, and a lot of people warm to that. Nice guy to have a beer and a yarn with, is the initial impression. Unfortunately, when the media move from soft chat to interrogation, he continues in that same inoffensive but insubstantial vein, and he starts to sound vague and waffly. Pleasantly vague, but vague nonetheless.

    ummm, boys and girls I don’t think you amass a fortune to the sum of 50 mil or so without have a wee rod of steel running through ya.

    Seems to have fooled you guys but.

  55. Lampie 55
    7 December 2007 at 8:10 am

    Not slippery, sidestepping, bit like these stupid right wing morons who come to a blog that is aimed at left wingers

    These morons are so thick, that if they were black americians, they would turn up for KKK meetings.

  56. Lampie 56
    7 December 2007 at 8:11 am

    Think some Granny porn sites must be down for these plonkers to show up.

  57. Mike 57
    7 December 2007 at 8:17 am

    If that’s the best he can do against former National Party candidate Paul Henry, then I’m really looking forward to the one-on-one elecction debates with Ms Clark, the poor boy is going to get torn to shreds.

  58. Kent 58
    7 December 2007 at 8:25 am

    I don’t like it, I think it’s dishonest, and I’d like to show people what’s really happening behind the spin.

    Ah, but Tane, politics is all about spin, on both sides. There is no right or wrong, there is just who can get their argument across strongest. Of course there are those who stoop to personal innuendo/abuse. We usually have rules to help regulate this, but when the innuendo falls in a gray area those rules are harder to apply. Key was in a gray area here and, yes, he was probably stumped, but, hey, he has only been in the position for a year, facing questions front on. Clark was pretty inept when she first poked her head up for leadership and look how she turned out.

  59. r0b 59
    7 December 2007 at 8:47 am

    “There is no right or wrong,”

    That’s a pretty sill thing to say Kent.

  60. Insolent Prick 60
    7 December 2007 at 8:54 am

    Lampie,

    You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel of offensive behaviour: These morons are so thick, that if they were black americians, they would turn up for KKK meetings.

    Given your glaring failure to engage with anybody in debate, let alone argue the points with any coherence, you really do take the cake.

    Mike, if John Key can get under Cullen’s skin so much that the deputy prime minister can only resort to calling him a “scumbag” and a “rich prick”, then I wouldn’t put it past the Prime Minister to get pretty flustered, too.

  61. Barnsley Bill 61
    7 December 2007 at 9:17 am

    another storm in an egg cup. The comment he made about cullens wife was factual.
    And how should we take Cullen screaming prick and scumbag across the house. This is after all the numpty who controls all our money.

  62. James Kearney 62
    7 December 2007 at 9:28 am

    Bill: the news reports about Bill English’s son were factual. That didn’t stop English throwing a tantrum over it.

    Impotent Prick: there’s a difference between a friendly MP bringing up another’s family in Parliament for praise and having the opposition use other MPs’ family members to score cheap political points. You have obviously done your research though and scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a way to excuse Key’s behaviour. You’re not a nat party researcher are you?

  63. Robinsod 63
    7 December 2007 at 9:34 am

    Hey Bill – I think a lot of people will see Cullen losing his rag as a sign he’s a human being. A lot of the National party’s framing of Labour has been based on it being a party of cold and cynical operators – plenty of voters would identify with Cullen’s response to Key’s comment because nobody likes personal politics. And before anyone points out that Labour have played this game too – I’ll point out that National has a much greater history of this kind of jibe. That doesn’t make it right of course and I’m thinking there needs to be some kind of shift in the discourse toward more constructive debate. As speaker Margaret Wilson needs to take some of the responsibility for this.

  64. Lampie 64
    7 December 2007 at 9:54 am

    Given your glaring failure to engage with anybody in debate, let alone argue the points with any coherence, you really do take the cake.

    Now that is the pot calling the kettle black

  65. Santi 65
    7 December 2007 at 9:57 am

    “Margaret Wilson needs to take some of the responsibility for this.”

    Wow. Are you, stubborn labourite, advocating personal responsibility? Since when socialists like yourself care for the individual over the faceless entities they claim to defend?

    Be careful or you could be expelled from the socialist gang.

  66. Lampie 66
    7 December 2007 at 9:57 am

    Mike, if John Key can get under Cullen’s skin so much that the deputy prime minister can only resort to calling him a “scumbag” and a “rich prick”, then I wouldn’t put it past the Prime Minister to get pretty flustered, too.

    That’s not even a valid argument

  67. Robinsod 67
    7 December 2007 at 10:18 am

    Santi – I hate to disappoint you but I am not a “laborite”. And you and your ilk also need to start taking personal responsibility. I’m getting sick of hearing the right blaming their woes on everyone else and playing the victim card.

  68. PhilBest 68
    7 December 2007 at 11:41 am

    I am appalled with John Key here because he doen’t just chew up Paul Henry and spit him out. What a non-question about a non-gaffe. So National MP’s are supposed to leave Labour ministers wives/lovers out of it regardless of what they do that has a direct bearing on the process of politics in NZ? You want your wife left out of it, pal, YOU KEEP HER OUT OF IT. Once she’s got her hands dirty through her own deliberate volition, don’t come crying to us if she gets a mention by the opposition. How desperate ARE you guys?

    And I am just a tad cynical about the wheeling out of the “misogyny” thing every time certain comments are passed about Our Dear Leader. It is perfectly consistent to admire, respect, and love women, yet be appalled at the repudiation of womanhood that is fashionable in the feminism movement today, of which Our Dear Leader is an exemplar. “Misogyny” is a very old term that has somewhat lost its relevance. Our Dear Leader herself could stand accused of very deep hatred for the kind of womanhood for which the “misogyny” term originally stood as a defence.

  69. Tane 69
    7 December 2007 at 11:56 am

    ‘repudiation of womanhood’? wtf?

    The Nats have a huge mysogyny problem Phil. Here’s just the latest example: http://nominister.blogspot.com/2007/12/this-ones-for-fairfacts.html

    And you don’t do yourself any credit referring to Clark as Dear Leader.

  70. Matthew Pilott 70
    7 December 2007 at 12:03 pm

    The Prophet:
    :ummm, boys and girls I don’t think you amass a fortune to the sum of 50 mil or so without have a wee rod of steel running through ya.

    Seems to have fooled you guys but.”

    Tell that to the autistic boy who could have been a multi-millionaire by writing the most amazing computer code the FBI has seen this side of the NSA! it takes all sorts

    Santi: “Since when socialists like yourself care for the individual over the faceless entities they claim to defend?” I make no apoligies for supporting society over and above corporations!

    PhilBest: “Misogyny” is a very old term that has somewhat lost its relevance” It’s relevant the fifty millionth time you hear “Feminazi Liarbore Labia Party”, if you take it at the standard definiton of hating women. To be honest, I am unsure about the interpretation you have, so I might be missing your point entirely (apologies if so), but as it stands people think it means ‘women-hating’ and that has relevance to the vitriol spewed by an unfortunate select few (by tacitly supported by the rest)

    Captcha: Woman a – this thing bloody reads our minds…

  71. Lampie 71
    7 December 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Yeah Robinsod, insolent is arrogrance, arrogrance is egocentric thinking.

  72. Santi 72
    7 December 2007 at 12:29 pm

    “The Nats have a huge mysogyny problem Phil”.

    Gender should have nothing to do with it. You’re either qualified or not to do the job. Selection on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or race is a mere excuse to promote the underqualified.

    On the subject of attitudes toward women: explain tangata whenua’s and women in marae?

  73. Luke 73
    7 December 2007 at 12:53 pm

    Cullen did mot nominate Nash, he just signed the form which does not indicate support. Cullen said he would have signed Fairbrothers
    if he asked as well.

  74. The Double Standard 74
    7 December 2007 at 1:57 pm

    “The Nats have a huge mysogyny problem Phil.”

    Yeah, tell Jenny Shipley eh? Or have you forgotten where NZ’s first women PM came from?

    And unless I’m missing something, no minister is a not part of the Nat party.

    You do some spout some crap sometimes Tane.

  75. PhilBest 75
    7 December 2007 at 4:10 pm

    Actually I am deeply sorry the Nats didn’t keep the Ship. She would probably have seen Our Dear Leader (Sorry! I mean, Saint Helen) off long ago.

  76. IrishBill 76
    9 December 2007 at 11:54 am

    Phil, Near the end of her tenure Jenny Shipley was regularly polling considerably lower in the prefered PM stakes than Helen. For an incumbent this is unusual. She was also the face of the electricity reforms, the meltdown with Winston over Auckland airport and the privatisation of ACC. On a personal level I have to say she was truely dreadful to deal with in person.

    And I’m not sure if you remember it or not but she had a chance against Clark in the 1999 election and got thrashed.

  77. burt 77
    9 December 2007 at 8:24 pm

    He should have just called Paul Henry a creep and walked out. They you guys would think that he was the best thing since Muldoon.