Gone Flippin’

Written By: - Date published: 11:58 am, October 29th, 2008 - 21 comments
Categories: election 2008, flip-flop, john key, national, slippery - Tags:

Slippery John’s flip-flops keep on coming.

Here he is just three weeks ago in the Listener: “you either have a conflict of interest or you don’t; it doesn’t matter whether you hold one share or a million”

and, today, on Breakfast: ‘it’s a very small number, no-one thinks a Member of Parliament with 500 Contact shares has a conflict of interest’

Now, I know John’s a bit of a maths whizz but I’m pretty sure 496 is between one and a million.

Then there’s Key’s positive and ambitious campaign that never quite materialised. Last week, Key said National wouldn’t be running attack ads But work must have already been underway on them but, now, it has released three. Sure, they’re pretty weak – everyone knows newspaper headlines are sensationalist, the buzzing sound is annoying and the narrator who doesn’t know whether her tone is meant to be amused or outraged – but they’re hardly positive.

While we’re on the topic of flip-flops, here’s the latest riff on the ‘two National party guys’ ad by 08wire:

21 comments on “Gone Flippin’ ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. milo 1
    29 October 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Why am I on moderation now?

    [lprent: There are various emotive words that tend to get overworked by trolls. I have comments with those words in to automatically moderate. It is the fast and early catcher for trolls because they tend to have a limited vocab.]

  2. milo 2
    29 October 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Eh? That’s weird. Not on moderation on this thread. Is it controlled by the thread author, or just a system glitch? I’m on moderation on “Chain gang”.

    [Tane: The word ‘Nazi’, like ‘Stalin’ and others, is on moderation in order to filter trolls.]

  3. Ianmac 3
    29 October 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Seems a pity that there is no mechanism for public information on these flip-flops. Does it matter? Yes because if you are PM you had better be clear and consistent. Imagine the problem on National or World stage if you tell different audiences different answers.
    By the way the Listener quote is from the current Listener page 19. Surprisingly Jane Clifton does a good job re John & Helen, though she appears a bit “concerned” that John digresses/dissembles.

  4. the sprout 4
    29 October 2008 at 12:50 pm

    …and National Flip-Flop Number 475:

    “We will be keeping our campaigning positive”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4742370a28435.html

  5. leftrightout 5
    29 October 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Rather ironically on that same breakfast program he was having a dig at Winston Peters for not being honest with public… pot, kettle, black or something like that?

  6. fiona 6
    29 October 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Just love National’s negative new ads – they very cleverly tap into voters trust of negative / sensationalist newspaper headlines.

    Rather like the clever National billboard by the Melling Bridge in Lower Hutt which has the Party Vote National bit obscured. Perhaps it’s subliminal.

  7. Sarah 7
    29 October 2008 at 2:24 pm

    You guys complain too much. Keep positive.

    The whole share thing is such a non-issue. If you honestly think that Gerry was attempting to improve his pecuniary interests (through 500 shares) by asking those questions on Contact, then i’m sorry to say that you’re very deluded. It’s mud-raking at its worst. No wonder JK thought people had gone through his rubbish. If Clinton had the chance, he’d have his talons in there without a moments notice.

    John was very strong on Breakfast this morning btw.

  8. KiwiGirl 8
    29 October 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Just loved Helen’s flip-flop on the entrenchment of the Maori Seats.

  9. the sprout 9
    29 October 2008 at 2:45 pm

    KiwiGirl
    Yes interesting isn’t it how any flip-flop from Clark stands out like a sore thumb because it’s so atypical, whereas from Key flip-flops are barely noticable now because they’ve just become accepted as the norm.

  10. Sarah 10
    29 October 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Not really sprout. I would blame this website for giving you that allusion.

    Most of Key’s changes in policy have simply been a reflection of the fact that as a leader of a party you have a greater influence on the direction of party policy.

    Helen’s “flip-flops” have solely been based on lies and gaining more power.

  11. Sarah 11
    29 October 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Actually hell even I don’t believe that. They’re both as bad as one another. This site however is solely fixed on Key’s, and as a result they give the allusion that Helen is much better than she actually is.

  12. fraser 12
    29 October 2008 at 3:16 pm

    “Most of Key’s changes in policy have simply been a reflection of the fact that as a leader of a party you have a greater influence on the direction of party policy.”

    that would be true if the policy was (x) then post Key it was (y). But thats called a change in policy direction.

    (at least thats what it looks like your getting at in the above statement.)

    whereas a flip flop is “my position is (x). well… actually… i always said it was (y)… but i meant australia… and ive been misquoted”

    unless of course you’re actually saying that as Key is the leader, he therefore has greater influence on policy, therefore policy will change from one thing to another. – but that would be a flip flop wouldnt it?

  13. randal 13
    29 October 2008 at 3:35 pm

    I would say that Keys is “flippin gone”
    hehehehehe

  14. Ianmac 14
    29 October 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Helen Flip-flop ?
    Helen’s stated position on the Maori Seats was that she “did not think that they needed to be enshrined.”
    Taria said that they must be as a bottom line.
    “OK “said Helen.”If it is that important to you, but it won’t change anything in practice.” Flip-flop?

  16. vto 16
    29 October 2008 at 4:03 pm

    flippin’ belongs to the malleable morality set of clark cullen and peters. bleeeargh!

  17. r0b 17
    29 October 2008 at 4:12 pm

    the malleable morality set of clark cullen and peters

    Say vto – do you think Key is fit to be PM after lying to NZ over his TranzRail shares?

  18. vto 18
    29 October 2008 at 4:15 pm

    r0b, is that an admission of lying within that malleable morality set of clark, cullen and peters? ay? ay?

    you keep referring to this tranzrail shares issue. from the little i have read it was a mistake – why would he lie about something like that?

  19. r0b 19
    29 October 2008 at 4:32 pm

    r0b, is that an admission of lying within that malleable morality set of clark, cullen and peters? ay? ay?

    Not at all. I’m just interested in people who accuse Clark and Cullen of “malleable” morals while ignoring Key’s much more blatant issues with, for example, telling the truth.

    you keep referring to this tranzrail shares issue. from the little i have read it was a mistake – why would he lie about something like that?

    He would lie to conceal his earlier lies, and the possible issue of insider trading – using his questions as an MP to seek out information that assisted his financial dealings.

    And no, it wasn’t a “mistake”, it was a flat out lie. He’d been called on the issue of his shares – says he “later” found out he’d mislead parliament but decided to do nothing about it because “the public were no longer interested”. Then he got called on the issue again on camera, repeated his earlier lies, and quickly changed his story when confronted with a further question. It was such a blatant lie that even right wing commentators had to invent the expression “TranzRail eyes” to describe his behaviour.

    Key lied to NZ. Do you think he’s fit to be PM?

  20. vto 20
    29 October 2008 at 4:56 pm

    r0b, inside trading has zero weight as a reason for lying, given his political aims, his existing wealth and the tiddly small amount to be gained compared to the humungous risk involved.

    I guess the main question is – how do you know it was an intentional lie when he first said how many shares were held?

    If the lie was continuing with the story after he realised he had made a mistake then I guess you have a point. More about political wisdom though rather than whether he is a liar or not.

    Curious one though. If Clark had made a mistake and then later, when realised, failed to correct it and repeated the earlier version then it would be a bit smelly. Not fatal, but definitely smelly. Or rather, silly. Silly dumb.

    But imo that would be significantly less serious than Peters smelly carry-on and blatant lies. And it would seem to be only Clark’s superior political skills which prevents the stench from infecting labour too much.

  21. KiwiGirl 21
    29 October 2008 at 7:26 pm

    Key lied to NZ. Do you think he’s fit to be PM?

    Clark lied to NZ. Do you think she’s fit to be PM?

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.