Garner on Key vs Clark

124 comments on “Garner on Key vs Clark ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   26 March 2016 at 11:51 am

   Key’s legacy will be attempting to remove the Union Jack from our flag, as a way to distance ourselves from our colonial past. At the same time, he brought back the Knights and Dames honours, in a step back towards out colonial past.
   • mosa 1.1

     26 March 2016 at 1:32 pm

     A TONNE OF POLITICAL CAPITAL!!!!
     That sums up how Key and his cohorts have got away with appalling deceptions and other outrageous acts
     He more than ant other PM in recent memory has had a hell of a lot of political rope and the infamous Brand Key is still very much a potent force that wont easily give the game away
     I have been watching NZ politics scince 1984 and i cannot recall a PM that has had the inflated popularity that this man has had all re enforced by a compliant media that includes news on the net
     If he had used this amazing gift for the benefit of New Zealanders instead of behaving like a born to rule arrogant fool who engages in nasty character assinations of his opponets and blatantly deceives every time he opens his mouth and puts through policies that are paid for by massive money contributions on a promise that the status quo remains is not governing in the intrests of New Zealanders unless you are financially independent then you get a reward paid for by hard working kiwis and foreign banks who we will be paying back for decades and as for CHCH look at who got the contracts for the rebuild
     A lot of kiwis have been had big time and dont even know it and will vote for more next year and then for the female version after that.
     • Mosa 1.1.1

       26 March 2016 at 4:51 pm

       Garner has had an awakening for reality how amazing
       Yet be was one of those agitating for tax cuts under Clark 2004-5 and later in her term
       He was accusing them of stealing from NZers and not cutting taxes
       Unlike National they re invested and funded public services and the pension fund
       Bit rich to be praising her now after he put the boot in more than once
2. RHT 2

   26 March 2016 at 11:51 am

   Shouldn’t the headline say Garner?
3. Andrew Geddis 3

   26 March 2016 at 11:53 am

   Need to change your headline – “Garner”, not “Gower”!
   • r0b 3.1

     26 March 2016 at 11:58 am

     Oops – thanks RHT and AG. Holiday brain.
4. BM 4

   26 March 2016 at 11:57 am

   I think Duncan Donuts is having a bit of a troll.
   • North 4.1

     26 March 2016 at 1:44 pm

     “John Key may still be swamped with selfie requests in shopping malls, but that’s not the definition of a great leader.” Wow ! That’s akin to saying he’s predominantly an unctious construct. What took you so long Duncan ?

     Overheard, the Man-Child PM in Hawaii on phone to Audrey Young……..”There’s none of it’s my fault Audrey you know that now make sure you get that across. Yes John, yes John…….”
     • gsays 4.1.1

       26 March 2016 at 2:32 pm

       aye, the latest wannabe on the latest cooking or home renovation soap opera gets swamped for selfies too.
       that aint a high bar that has been set.
   • Rob 4.2

     26 March 2016 at 6:57 pm

     It takes a troll to recognise
     Of course there are those other trolls that inhabit our main stream media
     Did someone say Audrey???
   • Rob 4.3

     26 March 2016 at 6:57 pm

     It takes a troll to recognise
     Of course there are those other trolls that inhabit our main stream media
     Did someone say Audrey???
5. Old Tony 5

   26 March 2016 at 12:00 pm

   I don’t see it that way. Labour had the golden weather; did some good things (kiwisaver) and some lousy things (student loans). Left a fragile economy ready to tank when the hard times turned up. Managing through those hard times and the Christchurch earthquake without suffering the disruption which has characterised most of the western world is quite an achievement. I doff my hat to Key (and English) for that success.
   • mickysavage 5.1

     26 March 2016 at 12:25 pm

     Ever hear about the global financial crisis. Do you understand it was the fault of a bunch of greedy rapacious merchant bankers and not Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. Do you understand that National’s sole response has been tax cuts and borrowing heavily?

     DO you remember how unemployment in NZ was before the GFC the lowest in the western world and Cullen had paid of all the debt?

     I can’t make out if you are just stupid or trolling.
     • Old Tony 5.1.1

       26 March 2016 at 5:48 pm

       I don’t mind what conclusion you draw actually.

       The economy was heading into recession prior to GFC hitting home.

       But you are missing the point a smidgen. I am less concerned with bagging Clarke and Cullen and more concerned with making the point that given the circumstances Key and English haven’t actually done too bad.

       Steady as she goes, while not disrupting people’s lives by winding back social assistance in response to the worst economic challenges in 80 years, coping with an earthquake, and increasing real benefit levels looks pretty good to me.
       • lprent 5.1.1.1

         26 March 2016 at 8:26 pm

         Problem is that they did absolutely nothing to make anything better for future generations.

         The Clark government fostered the development of what is now a very large exporting tech sector. It was really tiny in the 90s. Now i think it is one of the biggest employers as a sector. High paying jobs and future prospects from a deliberate policy started in 1999. That was done at a time when we weren’t in a favourable economic position. It was a deliberate act of foresight.

         National gave us more exposure to selling more bulk commodities – with the inevitable results. Price went down. Ad you point out, National are the muddle along party who have no foresight.

         That is why their characteristic political attribute during my lifetime has been to accumulate debt for me to pay back, and produce nothing substantive to show for it.
       • Keith 5.1.1.2

         27 March 2016 at 8:05 am

         Steady as she goes Old Tony? You mean borrow like theres no tomorrow, frozen public service expendature and useless flag campaigns that cost a fortune. And how could i forget, filthy destructive smear campaigns ticking away. Yes real steady alright.

         The earthquake was essentially self funding with EQC and insurance and they’ve milked the growth it gave for all it was worth, delaying the rebuild to keep what growth it can give so these no hopers have some veneer of economic credibility.

         National got in and were going to mine national parks, flood vast swaithes of land for irrigation, drill for oil and provide the nation with fibre optic broadband. All they achieved was ministers on the take remaing right where they are, debt and asset sales.

         Like the Captain of the Titanic, you can keep your doomed steady as she goes, NZ needs better than useless!
       • Foreign waka 5.1.1.3

         27 March 2016 at 10:40 am

         May I say that the dealing with the need of Christchurch after the earthquake no less than 4-5 years ago is nothing short of disgraceful. Full stop, enough said.
         BTW – NZ has the only admirers of that approach whereas any other comment worldwide would join me. Its a rort and it smells a mile away.
       • Mosa 5.1.1.4

         27 March 2016 at 12:30 pm

         National= Status Quo and not doing a hell of a lot because it will upset vested interests
         Progress is only initiated by the left
         English couldn’t keep his hands off Kiwisaver he surprised though by not eliminating the employer contribution
         There is always post 2017 for that
       • ropata 5.1.1.5

         27 March 2016 at 4:22 pm

         The Quakes were a test of National’s character, John Key’s legacy could have been rebuilding an entire city, but instead he and his cronies allowed a frenzy of demolition and disaster capitalism and let insurance companies cheat their customers.

         Key grew up in a state house, another wonderful legacy of the First Labour Government, and continued by both parties for decades. But his legacy to needy Kiwis is a mass state housing sell-off, a disgraceful leap down the inequality rankings, and making Auckland the second least affordable city in the WORLD
       • Lloyd 5.1.1.6

         27 March 2016 at 9:24 pm

         The sad thing, Old Tony, is that every New Zealander would have been much better off now if the economic policies of the former Labour government had been continued through the period when John Key has been running our economy down.
         The economic multiplier of the benefits which have been cut are much greater than any economic multiplier of tax cuts to the wealthy.
         We would of course have been better off if all education had been freed up and we would all be benefiting now from the dividends of those companies that John Key has sold for a couple of years worth of profits.
         The wishy-washy mess that John Key’s government has turned our economy into was saved from ignominious disaster by the insurance pay-out on Christchurch and the good luck of the Chinese baby milk boom at the same time the EU milk production rules were still in force. Those props are now falling out and unfortunately many kiwis are about to receive a nasty gift from John’s incompetence.
     • J Ryan 5.1.2

       28 March 2016 at 8:03 am

       Who do you think you are dickysavage? Some guru of wisdom? That someone expresses another opinion and you bullet them. What a dick. Listen idiot, I clearly remember when Clarke came into power. The timing couldn’t have been better. The world economic cycle spiralled upwards and Clarke and Cullen boasted to the uninformed of their great skills running the NZ economy. The town fool could have achieved this as the cash was simply filling the government coffers. They used the excess funds to buy votes and laden the country with debt.
   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 5.2

     26 March 2016 at 12:50 pm

     National has had economic good times -a commodity boom -high dairy prices -the best terms of trade. What have they achieved? It didn’t even pay off their first terms tax cuts for the rich -they have run years of deficits.They placed all their bets on the success of milk powder exports and the gamble hasn’t paid off.

     National has spent more money on their pork barrel Roads of National Significance than they have on the Christchurch rebuild. Mostly the rebuild has been funded by Cantabrians private insurance -not the nation’s taxpayers.

     What is National’s plans for tackling Christchurch’s over reliance on construction and a failing dairy sector? Canterbury’s tourism and foreign student industries haven’t recovered to its pre-earthquake level, while in the rest of country -tourism and foreign student education are doing well. http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Bulletins/2016/2016feb79-3.pdf

     What is the government doing about the misallocation of investment in the form of scarce investment capital being wasted on sending Auckland house prices ever higher?

     This government is superficial and runs away from the tough issues -where is the PM -Hawaii?
   • Draco T Bastard 5.3

     26 March 2016 at 1:34 pm

     Left a fragile economy ready to tank when the hard times turned up.

     Bullshit.

     Labour, despite clinging on to the failed capitalist free-market dogma, actually did leave a strong economy behind. National has come along after that and trashed it – as they usually do being the total ideological ignoramuses that they are. Haven’t got a thought amongst the lot of them.

     Managing through those hard times and the Christchurch earthquake without suffering the disruption which has characterised most of the western world is quite an achievement.

     Key, English and National haven’t managed anything except the media spin.
   • Stuart Munro 5.4

     26 March 2016 at 1:36 pm

     $120 billion in debt says “no financial skills whatsoever”.
     • Steve Withers 5.4.1

       27 March 2016 at 12:43 pm

       +1
   • whateva next? 5.5

     26 March 2016 at 1:46 pm

     Merryl Lynch was actually mentioned in the recent fantastic film :”The Big Short”….spells out why we had the collapse Key/English is supposed to have “steered us through”. Check it out, then think again if Key deserves ANY thanks.
   • gsays 5.6

     26 March 2016 at 2:36 pm

     hi tony,
     ” Managing through those hard times and the Christchurch earthquake without suffering the disruption which has characterised most of the western world is quite an achievement. I doff my hat to Key (and English) for that success.”

     i agree, to be compilcit in helping insurance companies not meet their end of the bargain without getting faeces on their hands, take a fair bit of manipulation and skullduggery.
     • Old Tony 5.6.1

       26 March 2016 at 6:06 pm

       The response to the Christchurch earthquake is an interesting issue and one on which I am loathe to comment given the its obvious sensitivity.

       However, for me the starting point is that the a rolling sequence of earthquakes broke the support models for a single event on which our system was based. There was always going to be incredible complexity as a result and I am not surprised five years on disputes continue.

       The governments response of spending vast chunks of taxpayers cash in addition to EGC funds was extremely generous. Especially helpful was the purchase of red zone properties at government valuation to allow people move on. It was recognised as such by the Christchurch electorate in 2011 and all credit to them for that.

       I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on the actions of the insurance companies. However I found John Campbell’s advocacy campaign simplistic and hysterical.

       All the best to those still struggling.
       • pat 5.6.1.1

         26 March 2016 at 10:23 pm

         “I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on the actions of the insurance companies. However I found John Campbell’s advocacy campaign simplistic and hysterical.”

         Are you in a position to comment on the actions of the government agencies EQC and Southern Response?
   • NZJester 5.7

     26 March 2016 at 3:05 pm

     Labour used that golden weather to put this country in a nice financial position with our debts paid off and a nice stream of cash due from the SOEs.
     Key and his cronies immediately screwed all that up to borrow money for a tax cut for the rich we could not afford and then they went after stuffing up the cash flow from the SOEs by selling off as many shares in them as they could to rich National supporters for a pittance of what they would have brought in.
     National while claiming they would not increase taxes went and did a dirty tax swap that hit the poor of this country the hardest by increasing GST while lowering PAYE so that the poorest in this country ended up with even less spending power than they had before as the pittance extra they received from the lower PAYE was less than the extra cost added to weekly essentials like housing, food and power.

     The two biggest legacies of this current National government are growing every day and that is the huge debt burden they have given this country, as well as the increasing gap between the cost of living and those on the minimum wage.
   • Chuck 5.8

     26 March 2016 at 4:37 pm

     Spot on Old Tony. Key has directed NZ through some pretty hard times…that is why he is as popular now as he has ever been. A significant number of NZ’ers see Key as a safe pair of hands.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.8.1

       26 March 2016 at 5:47 pm

       Key has directed NZ through some pretty hard times…

       And made the majority of people worse off while rewarding the rich for being rich.

       It’s policies like that that destroy entire civilisations.
     • Stuart Munro 5.8.2

       26 March 2016 at 7:21 pm

       Yes, Key has guided most of NZ into very hard times – 3-400 thousand children in poverty – and of course their parents – over a million people living lives of quiet desperation. This is Key’s legacy – all that remains is for him to reap the whirlwind.
     • Don't worry. Be happy 5.8.3

       26 March 2016 at 9:28 pm

       Ackshully when I hear a right wing twat witter on about Key having “safe hands” his fondling of young womens’ ponytails and jokes about “feeding the chooks” come unbidden to mind. Sick making and embarrassing poor excuse for a man.
   • Rob 5.9

     26 March 2016 at 7:01 pm

     Well that tells us
     Christchurch eq $45B
     Much spent locally every $ of wages around 30%
     Paid back to govt and every penny spent carries 15% back to govt
     They have done well out of us poor bs who have to live in Christchurch
     • vto 5.9.1

       27 March 2016 at 7:48 am

       Exactly.

       John Key’s government has been a net beneficiary out of the earthquakes.

       Wake up old tony, your ignorance on that one issue weakens all else you spout
     • vto 5.9.2

       27 March 2016 at 7:50 am

       Exactly.

       John Key’s government has been a net beneficiary out of the earthquakes.

       Wake up old tony, your ignorance on that one issue weakens all else you spout
     • Keith 5.9.3

       27 March 2016 at 8:14 am

       And didn’t Key milk it for all it was worth looking sooo magnanimous, sooo Presidential. Fast forward several years later the job is far from done and Key is nowhere to be found.
     • Foreign waka 5.9.4

       27 March 2016 at 10:50 am

       It was the corporate balance sheet against human misery…
       You Can Easily Judge the Character of a Man by How He Treats Those Who Can Do Nothing for Him. Malcolm S. Forbes
   • Steve Withers 5.10

     27 March 2016 at 12:41 pm

     Without National’s unsustainable and counter-productive tax cuts, NZ would have been even better positioned to meet the challenges of the global economy, address the disaster in Canterbury and avoid more debt while at the same time being able to afford the infrastructure costs that population growth is imposing…….and more besides.

     National’s entire approach to growth is to implement a failed economic philosophy that has degraded and undermined the middle class everywhere it has been tried…..to the cost of all and to the global economy.

     Obvious to everyone but a National Party supporter.
   • framu 5.11

     29 March 2016 at 12:30 pm

     you doff your hat to english while forgetting that he praised cullens economic management
6. Gangnam Style 6

   26 March 2016 at 12:03 pm

   “Key has enjoyed a tonne of political capital and the disappointing thing is that he hasn’t used it for any meaningful, lasting project. ” – Yep, Hooton has been banging on about that for years, that’s why those guys all went off him.
   • mosa 6.1

     27 March 2016 at 2:23 pm

     Where is the kiwi Bernie Sanders hiding ?
     He is the only one advocating for those trapped in financial enslavery and in underpaid jobs being exploited for their labours and with no rights, and in fear of their employment situation
     Quite a large block of the population everywhere and here and with voting rights if someone would just come forward and speak for them like Bernie is doing now
     Wouldnt that liven things up, the prospect of a serious challenge to the aristocracy that controls the status quo and has the policy programe to advance it credibly
     Those with the least always give the most that still applies here in the 21st century
7. dv 7

   26 March 2016 at 12:20 pm

   But did Key have much of a choice? Not really. He had to steer us through a global financial meltdown, collapsing tax revenues and a massive Christchurch earthquake. There was little option.

   Little option?
   TAXcuts
   SCF?
   • mickysavage 7.1

     26 March 2016 at 12:27 pm

     The only “steering” he engaged in was borrowing heavily and giving tax cuts to the rich. And you should ask the good people of Christchurch what they think of the Government’s handling of the build.
     • Muttonbird 7.1.1

       26 March 2016 at 1:12 pm

       Yep, dear old Tracey Watkins scratched around at the bottom of the barrel and came up with the government’s handling of Christchurch as John Key’s legacy.

       Seriously.

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/78265500/political-week-john-keys-top-five-regrets-on-the-flag
     • Redelusion 7.1.2

       26 March 2016 at 1:34 pm

       To be fair none of them are gods, they both did some good things, did some bad things, did nothing, I think most people don’t expect to much from government be left or right, time marches on, governments come and go, most people just get on with it and don’t make who is on power the centre of their life or framing of every conceivable event. This is in contrast to many who comment here. No matter what who’s ever in power willl be the devil in carnate to the opposition and the extremes of left and right, ie JKDS or HKDS. Like wise the play things of the news media personalities at the time.
     • NZJester 7.1.3

       26 March 2016 at 3:15 pm

       If Labour had been in power then Christchurch would have been restored to a proper working city by now and the people would not have been shut out from their democratic rights like they have been under National. National has the city under a non democratic government appointed crony dictatorship.
       • dv 7.1.3.1

         26 March 2016 at 3:34 pm

         Delusion
         List three good things these Nats have done
         • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.1.3.1.1

           26 March 2016 at 7:58 pm

           1) Tax cuts for the rich
           2) Threw public cash at wealthy private investors to cover their bad investments
           3) That ponytail thing

           Who could ask for better??
           • gsays 7.1.3.1.1.1

             27 March 2016 at 8:46 am

             without going into pike river, huge changes to employment conditions and what is our national debt now?
           • Foreign waka 7.1.3.1.1.2

             27 March 2016 at 10:53 am

             You forgot the gambling deal, the sheep debacle etc..
     • odysseus 7.1.4

       26 March 2016 at 10:25 pm

       Not so sure about this criticism of borrowing. If we don’t borrow then are we not advocating more austerity?
       Be careful what you wish for.
       • dv 7.1.4.1

         27 March 2016 at 12:47 pm

         Not giving tax breaks would have helped.
   • Muttonbird 7.2

     26 March 2016 at 1:13 pm

     SCF will be Blinglish’s legacy. Even John Key can’t take that away from him.
     • dv 7.2.1

       26 March 2016 at 1:15 pm

       Key is/was the PM though, but fair enough.
       • Muttonbird 7.2.1.1

         26 March 2016 at 1:27 pm

         Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for Key (hell, anyone!) to be held accountable for that, the very worst episode in weak-kneed financial incompetence in New Zealand history, but as Garner says, the prime minister runs a mile from bad news…

         …look at where he is today, for example.
     • Stuart Munro 7.2.2

       26 March 2016 at 1:39 pm

       I’m sure Key got a cut.
       • dv 7.2.2.1

         27 March 2016 at 11:02 am

         The interesting thing was that Scales were sold to a neighbour of Keys cheap.
         It was then sold for a big profit.
         • Stuart Munro 7.2.2.1.1

           27 March 2016 at 11:36 am

           The interesting thing to me is that the whole of SCF was treated like a bankruptcy – but without any judicial process whatsoever. Scales was only part of the spoils of the dirtiest rip-off in NZ history.
           • dv 7.2.2.1.1.1

             27 March 2016 at 4:36 pm

             The story needs to be written Stuart
     • Lloyd 7.2.3

       27 March 2016 at 9:38 pm

       Aw, flag it.
8. mac1 8

   26 March 2016 at 12:24 pm

   Interesting timing of his piece. He criticises Key for dumping tough news on Easter Weekend, and then writes this tough criticism of Key to have it published at Easter.

   I have commented before on what Key’s legacy will be. I don’t think history will be fully admiring of his 9 years.

   I say nine years partly as my hope but also because there’s a lot of stuff happening or being mooted which indicates end times for this National government and therefore a new urgency to further the agenda before November 2017- tax lowered, selling off more assets such as KiwiBank, attacks on school/local authority/health board democracy and autonomy, water allocation capture, and so on.

   As part of this planning and urgency, did others note the curious description of the new G-G as being able to take advice? Are Key and his successor needing a compliant G-G to call an early election, or for some other purpose?
   • Craig H 8.1

     26 March 2016 at 1:11 pm

     I don’t think National will be able to do that much in terms of asset sales – they have to get either the Maori Party or Peter Dunne to vote in favour, and I don’t think either would be interested.
     • mosa 8.1.1

       26 March 2016 at 2:49 pm

       Dont bet on it Craig !!!!!
     • Stuff the Politicians 8.1.2

       26 March 2016 at 3:55 pm

       Craig H 8.1

       26 March 2016 at 1:11 pm

       I don’t think National will be able to do that much in terms of asset sales – they have to get either the Maori Party or Peter Dunne to vote in favour, and I don’t think either would be interested.

       Really, Peter (Mr 0.022%) Dunne will be interested in anything if it keeps his snout in the trough.
       The worst political parasite ever and there has been many.

       It will be a day to celebrate the day he gets the heave ho.
       • Craig H 8.1.2.1

         26 March 2016 at 10:24 pm

         He won’t do it, that would finally see him lose his seat.
   • Ffloyd 8.2

     26 March 2016 at 4:44 pm

     mac1.I did notice that comment and mentioned it to my husband. We thought it sounded like she has agreed to be ANOTHER compliant, I will do exactly as you say John sycophant. Hopefully this does not turn out to be the case.
9. Esther 9

   26 March 2016 at 12:26 pm

   http://edugeography.com/content/easter-island.html
10. RedLogix 10

    26 March 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Placeholder Prime Minister.
11. RedBaronCV 11

    26 March 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Lets not make any excuses for the Nacts.
    They inherited an economy in excellent shape -able to withstand the GFC. Nact did not have to reduce income tax rates, push up Gst and fund these changes with endless borrowing. We have had the best terms of trade in many a decade squandered and unfettered immigration keeping unemployment up which is a drain on the taxes we do pay.
    Labour made their own golden weather with the economic policies followed – the Nacts in the 90’s also did what they have just done again -kept the economy in permanent unneeded recession for their own ideological reasons.

    The flag referendum shows just how how much support they have lost although they are very busy spinning to try to avoid this conclusion
12. whateva next? 12

    26 March 2016 at 1:55 pm

    When Garner laid into Collins it had the desired effect, so I am all for Garner’s piece (unusually)
13. alwyn 13

    26 March 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Is this the same Duncan Garner so beloved by commenters here who say things like

    “And poorly thinking opinionists like Duncan Garner”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01022016/#comment-1127279
    “gleefully taking the rancid bait which Garner dropped.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/duncan-garner-and-the-great-christmas-beatup/#comment-1102756
    “Garner shows yet again hes a shit stirring shock jock with ratings to boost.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/duncan-garner-and-the-great-christmas-beatup/#comment-1102654
    “Question….Is Duncan Garner being paid the minimum wage or living wage when he writes propaganda like this?”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15112015/#comment-1096197

    Isn’t it amazing how people’s opinions of the man can change so fast?
    • b waghorn 13.1

      26 March 2016 at 2:42 pm

      You know what it means when the likes of garner rip into key. It means the wind has changed !
      • whateva next? 13.1.1

        26 March 2016 at 2:52 pm

        Exactly, and Alwyn I did make mention of not usually being a fan of Garner, as b waghorn suggests there is a sea change.Yay
    • Lanthanide 13.2

      26 March 2016 at 2:56 pm

      A stopped clock is sometimes right, even if it’s mostly wrong.
    • tc 13.3

      27 March 2016 at 10:04 pm

      My opinion of garner is unchanged, let’s see if he can keep up the critique after Joyce and co start in on his handlers via murky mark Weldon.

      This rates just as much as a dogwhistle, smear etc and is an obvious piece that any punter could right so easy work for duncs.

      Let’s see if he keeps at the emporers new clothes or reverts to type like a good mediawonks employee.
14. b waghorn 14

    26 March 2016 at 2:39 pm

    In 30 years key will be remembered for being a dirty toxic politician who pulled girls hair and thinks a country is a company.
    • Stuart Munro 14.1

      26 March 2016 at 4:53 pm

      In thirty years all going well, Key will not be remembered at all. Only an automated popup will remind the minister of justice that he has a mere twenty years left to serve.
    • Foreign waka 14.2

      27 March 2016 at 11:00 am

      I don’t think so, as always people will always remember the good stuff never the bad. Don’t get me wrong here, this is a neutral statement but one has to ponder what the future holds. Remember that the current discussion is about automation of workplaces. The division between the wealthy and the struggling rest will be getting wider and this time it will be tech billionaires vs third world country workplaces. Clouds are rolling in…and Key will be a faint memory from the “good ol’ days”.
      • b waghorn 14.2.1

        28 March 2016 at 3:17 pm

        I can’t recall reading anything positive about thatcher or muldoon yet I’m sure they weren’t a 100% bad or wrong.
15. DS 15

    26 March 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Funny thing is – no-one has ever been able to point to something Key has done, and say “I like him because he did that”.

    On the other hand, he’s widely hated among his opponents precisely because of the things he has done (his Government’s handling of Education is the worst since the Muldoon era), the asset sales, and so on. And let’s not even talk about the spying.

    What I think you’re seeing is that his supporters like him because his policies haven’t hurt them. He’s just a “funny, relatable guy who is offside with a bunch of commies.” Those supporters (most of whom are middle-class home-owners whose property values have sky-rocketed) have no comprehension of what it’s like to be the other half of the country.
    • Olwyn 15.1

      26 March 2016 at 5:07 pm

      +1 – That’s a good, insightful comment DS. All helped along by a compromised media.
    • Chuck 15.2

      26 March 2016 at 7:33 pm

      “On the other hand, he’s widely hated among his opponents…” think about that for a moment, are you suggesting KDS is in play? They “hate” his popularity for sure…after 3 elections they (his opponents) are still facing an up hill battle to win the respect of a good number of the NZ voting public. The more they “hate Key” the stronger he gets, because while it gees up the troops it puts off the average NZ voter.

      The point that keeps on coming through reading post after post here, is the general disrespect for the average voter…as in they are stupid, ill informed, why don’t they see Key as we do (baby eating Wall street monster etc). No doubt the reply’s will be that the average voter is stupid…that mind set will get Key a 4th term.
      • DS 15.2.1

        26 March 2016 at 8:07 pm

        It’s not about disrespecting the NZ voter, it’s that Key operates a 40/30/30 strategy.

        40% of the population get tax cuts and increased property values.
        30% of the population get utterly screwed (this being the section that hates Key’s guts).
        30% of the population are on the fence, but all Key needs to do is get a third of them – which he can do with his (highly-effective) PR machine and the media.

        You know, divide and conquer. I’m not saying the 40% are stupid or ill-informed, just that vanishingly few of them have a smidgen of empathy for their fellow citizens.
        • Chuck 15.2.1.1

          26 March 2016 at 8:42 pm

          While I would beg to differ on some of what you have written above, I do agree the last 30% are the “swing voters” not really in any camp – left or right. Its up to Labour to lift their game to present a creditable alternative to National to swing those votes their way.

          PR machine is bread and butter for any political party, and the media will always smell blood in the water when a ill thought out policy or statement is released, be it a National or Labour / Green one.
          • Olwyn 15.2.1.1.1

            26 March 2016 at 10:18 pm

            You are sidestepping DS’s point. DS is saying that the people who don’t like Key are able to say what he’s done to make them dislike him. The people who like Key however, are not hurt by what he has done, and think he is funny and likeable, but they cannot point to anything he has done that they admire.
            • Chuck 15.2.1.1.1.1

              27 March 2016 at 9:20 am

              Olwyn, no I am not sidestepping DS’s point. I commented “I would beg to differ on some of what you have written above”

              To be a little clearer then…those who dislike Key are in the main activists of the left. They will always find reasons to dislike Key, and thrive on it. I would think the 30% who DS said “hated Keys guts” would be more like 5%…the other 25% simply vote along their personal beliefs of being more left or maybe Green.

              People who like Key do so for there own reasons…and they may or may not “admire” him. But at the end of the day they think he is a safe pair of hands, specifically looking at what the alternative was for the last election.
        • pat 15.2.1.2

          27 March 2016 at 10:39 am

          only change id make to that would be to swap the percentage for the first and second cohorts….”I’m not saying the 40% (my opinion 30%) are stupid or ill-informed, just that vanishingly few of them have a smidgen of empathy for their fellow citizens. this statement is bang on the money”….and that statement is bang on the money.
      • Rodel 15.2.2

        26 March 2016 at 9:53 pm

        I know quite a few Tories who detest Key.
16. TheBlackKitten 16

    26 March 2016 at 5:59 pm

    WWF is a disgrace not a legacy and a policy that Labour should be deeply ashamed off. It is nothing but a subsidy for low wages from employers on the backs of the taxpayer. Of course Key has not got rid of it and never will as he thinks it’s wonderful. It gives the employers of this country a great opportunity to pay pathetic wages that don’t cover basic living expenses. The whole foundation of Labour was a fair days work for a fair days pay. It certainly was not a fair days work for a pittance that sends you to the welfare office to beg for a top up to simply enable you to pay for,the essentials in life. Seriously, can you imagine Kirk or Savage settling for that bullshit? Now they were great Labour Party Prime Ministers. Employers should be paying a fair wage, not expecting the taxpayer to top it up and the fact that a Labour Party implemented a policy that enabled them to get away with this is a complete disgrace!
    Clark was not a great Labour Party Prime Minister, Clark had other agendas and economically was more right winged then Key. She did nothing about the ECA Act, in fact, name one economic policy that she reversed that was implemented by the previous razor gang Bolger government? Tell me what objections did she make about Douglas whilst she sat in the Labour Party cabinet when he was the finance minister? A legend my arse!!!
    • BM 16.1

      26 March 2016 at 6:51 pm

      Key can’t get rid of WFF, if he even raised the idea he’d get booted out of parliament and that goes for any other politician from any party

      That was the most disappointing thing about Clark, she wanted to be the Kim Il-sung of NZ and fuck the consequences.
      • Rodel 16.1.1

        26 March 2016 at 9:56 pm

        Quote BM
        “That was the most disappointing thing about Clark, she wanted to be the Kim Il-sung of NZ and fuck the consequences.”
        What nonsense ! So dumb!
        • TheBlackKitten 16.1.1.1

          26 March 2016 at 10:30 pm

          But it’s the truth. That women was a control freak, refused to allow any other Labour Party members to grow and then left for better pastures at the UN. Unfortunately for NZ, she left the Labour Party with no one capable of being leader because she refused to have a bar of any competition for her job. End result is Key getting in election after election because the opposition is so dam ineffective.
          • Rodel 16.1.1.1.1

            27 March 2016 at 9:53 am

            No. It’s not the truth.
            Also….”That woman..That woman..” sounds like 1950’s misogyny or the lame ‘Helengrad’ insults of the last century
            • TheBlackKitten 16.1.1.1.1.1

              27 March 2016 at 10:28 am

              Why is it not the truth. Perhaps instead of name calling you might want to try putting a sensible alternative point across.
      • sabine 16.1.2

        26 March 2016 at 10:28 pm

        so John Key things that Parliament is above the Treaty, but he is not man enough to dis-establish WFF?

        http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/key-parliaments-wishes-supreme-over-treaty-2016032108#axzz43ynZ2R00

        that weak he is? Really? Are you telling us that Clark has had a bigger set of balls then Key? 🙂
        • TheBlackKitten 16.1.2.1

          26 March 2016 at 10:36 pm

          It’s quite simple. He will never ever get rid ofit because it benefits employers, just as rental subsidies benefit investors. Do you really think a National Party will get rid of something that benefits employers? The crying shame of it is that it was implemented by a Labour government. I bet the corporates laughed all the way to the bank and thanked Clark for that one.
          • sabine 16.1.2.1.1

            26 March 2016 at 10:53 pm

            no Millsy, he will never get rid of it, because it would loose him votes. Fact is that there are a lot of families that have access to WFF. Fact some even have one Parent not go to work lest they loose WFF. Now I don’t have children, but i get to essentially pay for middle class families via my taxes so that the Mum can stay at home.
            And in general I don’t have an issue with it. But to say that WFF only benefits employers paying shit wages is short sighted. It also allows some families to manage on one good wage.

            If it were for me, WFF would be scrapped altogether, and the first 25.000$ earned would be untaxed. As that is the minimum for anyone to eek out a wretched existance without trimmings.
            But then no one asks me.

            However I still believe that Clark has ovaries made of brass, while all key has to show for is scrambled eggs.
            • TheBlackKitten 16.1.2.1.1.1

              27 March 2016 at 9:27 am

              So are you saying you prefer tax payers to pay a liveable wage rather than the employer because that is what welfare wages are and there is no getting around that cold hard fact.
      • Foreign waka 16.1.3

        27 March 2016 at 11:05 am

        Jumping on a passing wagon? Clark has used the taxes that have been cut under Key to finance this. If you point out one side, than give it some balance please.
        • TheBlackKitten 16.1.3.1

          27 March 2016 at 10:45 pm

          But you still are not addressing the point that employers are failing to pay a wage that enables the employee to pay for the basic essentials. Another words, they are not paying a fair pay for a fair days work, the tax payer is. So the taxes Key cut were financing employers low wages. Another words, it was really a win for the employer and nobody else. Only a Tory would support that.
    • DS 16.2

      26 March 2016 at 7:58 pm

      [i]name one economic policy that she reversed that was implemented by the previous razor gang Bolger government?[/i]

      You might have missed it, but the Clark Government:

      – Repealed the Employment Contracts Act (the Employment Relations Act ain’t perfect, but at least it mentions the word “union” and doesn’t get us blacklisted by the ILO).
      – Restored ACC’s monopoly on workplace cover.
      – Renationalised the railways and Air NZ.
      – Set up Kiwibank (credit to the Alliance for this), in the face of enormous opposition from the financial sector.
      – Increased the top rate of income tax to 39%.

      Sure, Clark didn’t undo the 1980s, but she certainly rolled back the 1990s.
      • TheBlackKitten 16.2.1

        26 March 2016 at 10:22 pm

        My, my how grateful for the crumbs we should be. Fact that NZ still had low wages in comparison to the cost of living after nine years of a Labour government seems to have missed you completely. Sorry but I expect more from a political party that was based on providing a economy of a fair days pay for a fair days work. And the top tax break, lets be realistic, that only penalised the middle class, the rich don’t do paye tax. So what exactly did she do as a Labour Party Prime Minister about the greedy corporates that have been feeding of the rest of us like vultures for the past 30 years? What did she do for middle NZ economically? As I said, she was a disgrace for a Labour Party Prime Minister and does not hold a candle on the greats such as Kirk and Savage who actually did something for the average joe.
        And WFF and rental subsidies, they only benefit investors and employers so exactly who was Clark really representing? As I said, that women was as right winged economically as Key, if not more so.
        • DS 16.2.1.1

          27 March 2016 at 5:09 am

          You asked for “one policy” Clark reversed from the Bolger years. I gave you a laundry list. Rather than admit you were wrong, you are now trying to shift the goalposts.

          I’m sure Clark wished she could have waved a magic wand and doubled worker’s wages. As it was, her Government had an excellent record on the minimum wage, and reduced unemployment to a fraction of what it had been previously. Because politics can only ever be the art of compromise – do you not recall the financial sector throwing its toys out of the cot in the winter of 2000? Labour invariably faces severe institutional issues when in office, simply because of the power of its opponents. 1999-2008 is (mostly) a legacy to be proud of.
          • TheBlackKitten 16.2.1.1.1

            27 March 2016 at 9:32 am

            So you are essentially telling me to be grateful for the crumbs because it’s the best that they can do due to the powers that be? I wonder what situation we would be in if Savage or Kirk had adapted that attitude. Sorry but that’s what needs to be tackled, the powers that be should not be in a position to hold such power that they can dictate as they do.
            • RedLogix 16.2.1.1.1.1

              27 March 2016 at 11:36 am

              I can only reinforce what DS is saying.

              Some years back I had 30 min or so having a beer with Cullen one on one. He answered quite a few of my questions, but the thrust of it was exactly as DS says … that essentially that there really is an Establishment elite, and they do wield substantial power to constrain what governments can do.

              It’s only during periods when the Establishment has taken a major hit for some reason, the Great Depression, or a disaster like war, earthquake or industrial catastrophe that with luck and timing can leaders like Savage push through with major reforms.

              And for what it’s worth the 70’s were unusual times. Kirk enjoyed a few brief years of a nation receptive to social change, a door which has been firmly slammed shut ever since.

              The Establishment’s interests naturally lie with the 1% and left wing govts always face a head-wind from them.
              • Anne …

                27 March 2016 at 12:31 pm

                He answered quite a few of my questions, but the thrust of it was exactly as DS says … that essentially there really is an Establishment elite, and they do wield substantial power to constrain what governments can do.

                I only wish some of the excessively anti-Labour protagonists on this site were around the political scene 30-40 plus years ago because if they were… they should know exactly what Cullen is talking about. The classic British comedy show “Yes Minister” and its successor “Yes Prime Minister” were on the mark. I remember a former Labour Cabinet minister in the Kirk/Rowling govt. telling some of us about the enormous opposition he faced when trying to introduce a measure to control the rapidly increasing prices of goods and services (including petrol) of the day. He managed to push something through then Muldoon came along and immediately wiped it from the statute books – as he did numerous other progressive measures taken by that Labour government.
                • TheBlackKitten …

                  27 March 2016 at 11:20 pm

                  But the difference is that at least he tried and did not accept alternative weak fixes which is what WFF really is to the low wages issue. Sure, it was wiped out but it was wiped out by Muldoon but the Labour Party had still done the right thing and had done what the party was founded on which was fighting for people’s economic concerns. WFF is a weak pathetic fix by a weak pathetic Labour Government that lost its way and forgot what it’s foundations were – looking out for people’s economic concerns and a fair days work for a fair days pay.
              • DS …

                27 March 2016 at 4:42 pm

                Even someone like Savage ran into problems.

                – The sheer exhaustion the First Labour Government went through in setting up the public health system (over the threat of a doctor’s boycott) meant that they never included the dentists in the system.

                – There was a capital strike driven by business in 1938, resulting in a balance of payments crisis. Finance Minister Walter Nash had to go cap in hand to London to ask for a loan (over John A. Lee’s objections). World War II solved the crisis, so it tends to get forgotten.
                • TheBlackKitten …

                  27 March 2016 at 11:21 pm

                  Perhaps, but they still made the attempt for fairness and made huge differences to people’s lives. Just imagine if they had instead accepted weak alternative fixes like WFF. How would we be living today?
              • TheBlackKitten …

                27 March 2016 at 11:09 pm

                Before, wages used to the cover basic essentials but now they don’t. WFF is needed for low wages as a top up, another words the taxpayer pays and the rich don’t but get the benefits of cheap labour. You really wonder what actual progress has been made. So we have gone backwards since the days of Savage and Kirk and you say that they were only lucky to get their policies through due to the Great Depression and the establishment being weakened by that. Well I say if this is true then we better start thinking of another way because this one is not working and to simply accept that it is the way things are and implement policies like WFF is weak and is exactly what the establishment would love.
                Perhaps Savage and Kirk did catch the establishment at a weak moment but those men still had strength and determination for change for the better of the people just as the slaves in the southern states had strength and determination for freedom and fought for it and did not accept weak alternatives which is what WFF is.
                I doubt very much if Savage or Kirk were in Clarks position that ither would have rolled over and implemented a weak pathetic fix such as WFF for the low wage issue. They would have least made an attempt for something that was fair and WFF is not fair to the people. Let’s be real, those men had the people’s interests at heart and had a real passion to fight for a better life for the average joe and that motivation gave them strength to do what they did against the establishment. Clark had other agendas that fired her passion and fighting and dealing with the economic concerns for the middle was not one of them and that is really why we ended up with WFF.
    • Whispering Kate 16.3

      26 March 2016 at 9:23 pm

      I’ve always thought that WWF was a terrible idea. Why did it become such a burden for employer’s to pay for their workers. I was always told that if you can’t build your business so that you can afford to pay for your staff then you shouldn’t be in business. This WWF is just making tax payers pay the top up wages in lieu of the employers.
      I am glad you bought that up Blackkitten – subsidising the bosses – what an awful situation when so many people are on such low wages these days, that they have their taxes going into topping up what the employers should be contributing.

      Also, the employer’s contribution into Kiwi Saver has been reduced.
      • Sacha 16.3.1

        26 March 2016 at 9:46 pm

        WFF is a wage subsidy for incompetent employers, yes. Exactly as designed. Why Labour did not tackle the underlying problem, I don’t know.
        • vto 16.3.1.1

          27 March 2016 at 8:10 am

          WFF is exactly welfare for employers who don’t pay a decent days wage for a decent days work…

          It is cheaper to may minimum wage than it is to keep a slave ….

          truth

          disgusting pigs
    • red-blooded 16.4

      27 March 2016 at 9:28 am

      “She did nothing about the ECA Act, ”

      Bullshit! While Clark’s government didn’t reinstate compulsory unionism or the awards system, they did significantly wind-back the extremes of the ECA. The right to collective bargaining was reinforced, unions were enabled as the sole bodies enabled to bargain for a collective group, unions were given the right to enter workplaces, rights to basics like lunch breaks were spelt out… Not Nirvana, but not nothing.
      • TheBlackKitten 16.4.1

        27 March 2016 at 10:35 am

        Not nivana but yes it was nothing. Despite 9 years of a labour government NZ wages were still pathetically low and that is due to no representation for workers. She did a bit here and a bit there to make it look as thou she was doing something. But you can do all you like but it will always be the end result that matters. The end result after nine years of a labour government was that Contracts in the workplace were still the norm and our wages were still low in comparison to the rest of the world and many at the time were flocking to Australia due to better wages and a higher standard of living. Now I am no Key fan and I am not saying for one second he does any better, but what I am saying is that Clark did not act and do what a Labour Party Prime Minister should have done the ECA Act. Put it this way – what do you think would have happened to the ECA act if Kirk or Savage had come to power? My bet is s lot more than what happened to it when Clark came to power.
17. TheBlackKitten 17

    26 March 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Well Key has left a legend. One where no one part from rich Chinese can afford to buy a house in Auckland…..
18. ropata 18

    27 March 2016 at 4:36 pm

    We are selling it to Chinese millionaires, the next generation of kiwis can get stuffed

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1495757/next-canada-rich-mainland-chinese-push-new-zealand-migration-11-year-high
19. ropata 19

    27 March 2016 at 4:51 pm

    😂 nice pic

    John Key's #Legacy #nzflag #nzpol pic.twitter.com/Mldy4ms2Je— FUN McFunface (@nzsaysfun) March 27, 2016
20. gnomic 20

    28 March 2016 at 12:47 am

    The problem we have here is that Aotearoa is only nominally an independent self-determining nation. In reality it is merely a branch office of various multinational corporations and the big banks and latterly super rich foreign nationals. The supposed government merely determines trivial matters such as the rate of the spurious minimum wage, and authorises ever increasing surveillance. Much of the citizenry live a subsistence lifestyle while the bourgeois gloat over the ever increasing value of their trashy dwellings inflated beyond any realistic appraisal of their worth. Immigration ensures that the working people race each other to the bottom on working condition and wages. There is no brighter future. Key and the rest of the gang have mortgaged the country’s future so as to remain in power. Their legacy will be horrific. Key Detestation Syndrome is utterly rational unless you are profiting from the whiteanting of this country as so many are. Tribulation impends.

    1175-1225; Middle English < Latin trībulātiōn- (stem of trībulātiō) distress, trouble, equivalent to trībulāt (us) (past participle of trībulāre to press, squeeze, derivative of trībulum threshing sledge, equivalent to trī-, variant stem of terere to rub, crush + -bulum noun suffix of instrument) + -iōn- -ion
    • Incognito 20.1

      28 March 2016 at 12:49 am

      +1
    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2

      28 March 2016 at 7:20 am

      Immigration ensures that the working people race each other to the bottom

      No, it doesn’t. The deliberate dismantling of union rights does though.
    • ropata 20.3

      28 March 2016 at 10:03 pm

      NZ would be able to attract more skilled immigrants if salaries weren’t so shit and housing so unaffordable. People need a good reason to uproot and move down here at the arse end of the world, lifestyle alone isn’t enough. And with polluted rivers, gridlocked roads, potential earthquakes, and epidemics of burglary, obesity, domestic violence, inequality etc we aren’t exactly living the dream

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS