Hunt for the real John Key proves fruitless

Written By: Steve Pierson - Date published: 9:40 am, July 28th, 2008 - 83 comments
Categories: john key, slippery - Tags:

So, what have we learnt from the 18,000 words on John Key the Herald published with so much fanfare over the last two weekends?

We’ve learnt that, even if you devote a good portion of three senior journalists’ time to study the matter for six months, it’s still bloody hard to get any clear idea of what the man stands for. That in itself speaks volumes. It means he and his minders do not want his underlying beliefs to be public knowledge.

This makes sense for several reasons. First, when Key talked about differing only in ‘tone’ from Brash. Secondly, early in his career when he was less tightly controlled by himself and Crosby-Textor he said things like “DPB mothers are breeding for a business”, “we’re missing in action in Iraq”, “climate change is a hoax” “we would love to see wages drop” and comments about the labour market being too tight and wage inflation too high (= unemployment is too low and wage increases too high). Thirdly, this quote from the second part of the Herald coverage:

Key admits to being more cautious about the phrases he now uses …he likens it to being a magician with a magic wand. “You know, you don’t quite realise how powerful it is until you get to pick the wand up and you realise very small movements have quite strong and far reaching reverberations,” Key explains. “My underlying philosophies remain the same.” So his beliefs remain the same, the difference is in the language? “Yeah, I think that’s largely correct.” This is a startling admission which suggests that the real John Key is actually the John Key who originally entered Parliament, not the version we see today.

The magician’s cloak under which Key hides his true beliefs is akin to National’s under the radar policy releases. There’s only one reason why you would purposely keep voters ignorant of your policies and political principles – you think they won’t vote for you if they know about them.

83 comments on “Hunt for the real John Key proves fruitless ”

Comments are now closed

sdm 1

28 July 2008 at 9:59 am

Why should they announce anything before the election campaign itself? The PM holds the cards of setting the date, why should National be forced to move early.

I would personally support a system in which the election date was set in advance – say the first Saturday in November. Or maybe a system which required the PM to announce the date on say, 1 Jan of election year. Then the race is fair.

Obviously the governor general could step in if a government was to fall, but the concept of taking the politics out of election date setting is an attractive one to me.

Thoughts?
jafapete 2

28 July 2008 at 10:01 am

Surely it can’t be that hard to ferret out the real Key when he’s brazenly admitting to saying whatever it takes, whilst not changing his views on anything? Whatever Crosby-Textor are getting paid, they’ve earned it. The Herald should be ashamed of themselves.

As a commenter on my blog put it, “I think jafa is crying out for an insightful, passionate tell-all biography type thing – â€˜The Audacity of a-non-particulary-alarming-centrist-view’ maybe ” Okay, but even that would be better than the drivel in the Weekend Herald.
Anita 3

28 July 2008 at 10:02 am

sdm,

If National is proud of their policies, if they believe they are great policies that will make NZ better, if they believe they are attractive policies which will attract voters, they should want to release them and get the good word out there.

They should be shouting their wonderful policies from the rooftops.
Steve Pierson 4

28 July 2008 at 10:09 am

sdm. because there is only one conclusion to make when a politican doesn’t want you to know about their beliefs and policies, and that’s that they believe you’re more likely to support them in ignorance than out of informed opinion. You might support a political system where voter ignorance is prized. I don’t.

And don’t fool yourself – apart from the tax package announcment – the press releases over the last few weeks are all we are going to get from national on policy.
mike 5

28 July 2008 at 10:13 am

“There’s only one reason why you would purposely keep voters ignorant of your policies and political principles – you think they won’t vote for you if they know about them.”

Or that an election has not yet been announced
Anita 6

28 July 2008 at 10:15 am

SP,

Do you really think we’ll get nothing else?

I’m expecting to see both
* Health – hip replacements for grannies, plus a nod towards private hospitals and insurance, perhaps even funding boost for pharmaceuticals.
* Law-and-Order aka crime-and-punishment.

Um… there have to be some other obvious candidates.
Positive and ambitious 7

28 July 2008 at 10:17 am

The only interesting thing in the bio was the advance warning of Key’s banking mates being lined up to advise on infrastructure….they must be drooling.
…. and being described as having the memory of an elephant (not a south african elephant obviously)
Higherstandard 8

28 July 2008 at 10:23 am

Anita

You are joking I suspect – there is no private hospital lobby group that I know of in NZ and as for the pharmaceutical companies they have pretty much given up on NZ and regardless we are too tiny for them to really give a damn and the chance of new pharmaceuticals being funded here are slim to non-existent. (I don’t expect that will change one iota under National either sadly as PHARMAC has broad support from both Labour and National)

SP that may be the conclusion you want to make, however, it is pretty clear that the advice Key and National have taken is that they should not release certain policies prior to a certain time prior to the election.
Anita 9

28 July 2008 at 10:33 am

HS,

Private hospitals – exist and are a reasonably weighty lobby. In particular they have always been interested in doing more publicly funded elective surgery. So, for example, using private hospitals to do some or all publicly funded hip replacements.

Pharmaceuticals – there’s an ongoing debate about the split between primary health services, hospital health services and pharmaceuticals. Big pharma have always argued for increasing pharmaceutical availability for some diseases on the basis that it will reduce costs in other parts of the health system.
gobsmacked 10

28 July 2008 at 10:35 am

John Key is only concerned with getting elected and doesn’t give a shit about doing what is right

National is becoming a joke.

Blue on the outside, red on the inside and a bit of a girl

John Key is a major disappointment, he has bloody well sold out

The left have officially won people!
The “right’ are too freakin scared to upset the hysterical left and have just given into their policies.

I am growing a little tired of hearing Nationals announcements that it keep almost everything Labour does.

This a huge disappointment and a flip-flop of the highest order. John Key and the Tories have shown again their jelly-fish spine, and their lack of principles and conviction.

Key has dropped the ball totally.

The above 8 comments were brought to you courtesy of Kiwiblog, a small sampling from just one thread this morning, each opinion from a different commenter.

And you thought the Standard didn’t like John Key!
r0b 11

28 July 2008 at 10:43 am

You had me worried there for a minute gobsmacked! Nice summary, thanks (from one who doesn’t read KB)
mike 12

28 July 2008 at 10:44 am

GS – the Act boys are predictably miffed that JK has adopted WFF but the reality is that Labours welfare policy has reached well past the ones who actually need it is too messy for the Nats to unravel parts of it.
Matthew Pilott 13

28 July 2008 at 11:00 am

mike, stop covering for Key’s lack of vision and spine. He said that he’s realised people need WfF and he won’t change it, so either he thinks it is targeted just right, or he’s too lazy to improve the system. It wouldn’t be hard to change if he wanted to, he’s just too scared to do so.

Do you honestly think it would be too hard for National to readjust the thresholds? I’ll tell you the real reason mike, the one the tories don’t want to admit. The upper end of WfF probably exists only in theory. How many households earn over $120k or whatever it is, and also have six+ children? I’d guess it’s fewer than seven. So why bother to ‘fix’ a system when to problem with it is so minimal as to be a non-problem in the first place?

I’m happy to say I’m not comfortable with the higher limits of WfF because I think it’s irresponsible to encourage such rampant reproduction, but if such a system is implemented, it would be worse to punish the children of families with many children. But I support the system in principle, National should not. Hell, maybe I should be generous and suggest Key at least knows a good thing when he sees it (and in this case, you’d argue that the good thing is the Labour Government in its entirety – what are they changing again?).

What I’d love to see is Key coming out and saying what he believes, I’ll use the employment market as an example. Why can’t he just say “I, John Key, think wages are too high and too many of us have jobs”? He can then explain why this is a bad thing, what National would do to ‘fix’ it, and what benefits we can expect.

If the man had a bit of backbone he would do this, but I very much doubt that what he would like to do will be for the benefit of many New Zealanders, so I guess he’ll keep it to himself, election date or no.
Felix 14

28 July 2008 at 11:00 am

Yeah mike – god forbid a government should have any ability to… I don’t know, govern?

If they don’t believe in it and don’t think it should be kept they should say so and let the people vote accordingly. Same goes for everything else they’ve caved in on.

It’s just all too messy really isn’t it?
Vanilla Eis 15

28 July 2008 at 11:06 am

mike: I agree completely. People on 80k+ don’t need any income relief at all. Down with tax cuts!
Felix 16

28 July 2008 at 11:07 am

Oh that’s right mike – as you indicated above, policies are for elections not for governing. They’re strategies to win votes and they only have relevance to the big race.
randal 17

28 July 2008 at 11:23 am

ashly its john keys prerogive (sic) to be as feeble as he likes
The Double Standard 18

28 July 2008 at 11:33 am

Pretty pathetic effort at a beat up there Clinton. I found that the article gave a good in-depth look at Key’s background.

It seems that those on the left want to manufacture ‘beliefs’ for Key so that they can then attack Key on those same beliefs. Tell me if Trotters beliefs allow him to hold those vile views that he expressed a couple of weeks ago?

On policies, it seems that the Nats are making good progress in releasing policies. It obviously disappoints you that they do not show a radical shift from the current policies of Teh Party. That doesn’t stop Mallard cranking up the hysteria though.

I’m wondering why Teh Party didn’t announce the interest free student loan policy at the start of 2005 instead of a couple of weeks before the election that year – why would spring that at the last minute?
Rob 19

28 July 2008 at 12:08 pm

Classic move by National and John Key must have been designed by Crosby Textor. Totally takes the wind out of Labours sails again and makes him look like the Statesman prepared to listen.

This is great because we haven’t had this with the Labour Governement they dont listen.

I must admit its so entertaining to see Clark and Labour so frustrated as they don’t know how to attack him and whenever they do they generally fall flat on their face its better than any comedy show.

Thank you Crosby Textor you’ve done it again money well spent!!
randal 20

28 July 2008 at 12:15 pm

rob it escapes no one that keys is a pretender and a usurper with a back office in new york and sydney which is why his utterances are so jerkey!
gobsmacked 21

28 July 2008 at 12:20 pm

Rob

Do you support the Working for Families policy?
Matthew Pilott 22

28 July 2008 at 12:45 pm

The Double Standard, the reason Labour didn’t announce the Student Loan policy at the start of 2005 was that they were busy releasing other policy. unfortunately that’s an excuse National can’t use!

I ask you – firstly – why is it that you think people are manufacturing ‘beliefs’ for Key – give me a few examples. Secondly, if this is happening, then either Key has no beliefs or has not expressed any of them. If you were to make up ‘beliefs’ about Clark, for example, things she’s actually said and opinions she’s expressed, would contradict a ‘manufactured belief’ if it was not accurate. Key is too scared to speak his mind, and so his position on virtually any policy is indefensible because you’d have to manufacture your own belief upon his behalf!

Rob – so you think it’s a good move? Aren’t you dying inside though, just a little, that Key has shown once again that he won’t act for what he considers to be in our country’s interests, because he’s too scared to rock the boat? Aren’t you disappointed by his mediocrity? I mean he said that WfF was turning NZ into a welfare-dependant state – don’t you care that someone you presumably support has shown himself to be so shallow?

I get the drift that you think it is a politically astute move – we’ll see about that. What I’m trying to see, Rob, is if you are as weak and spineless as Key, or if you’ll have the balls he’s lacking and say you think it was a smart tactic, but a true cop-out..

What is truly funny Rob, and quite insightful (into your thought process or lack thereof) is that you think Key is listening because he is keeping policies that are popular – ones that Labour implemented! Do you think all these popular policies were implemented by chance, Rob? Are you truly as stupid as that, or did you just not think before writing “This is great because we haven’t had this with the Labour Governement they dont listen.“?
Rob 23

28 July 2008 at 1:31 pm

I think Labour could have kept the Prisons under a State / Private partnership but no they had to drag them back and assume control. That hasn’t been a stunning success lets look at the corrections department a cot case.

They could have kept ACC going the way it was but no they had to drag it back and assume control.

They could have gone into roading infrastructure much earlier with private funding and tolls ETC they came out strongly against this suggestion, but what do you know later on they do it because they realised they couldn’t do it alone.

Mathew as far as my thoughts on Working for Families I believe it should be much more specifically targeted for the really needy because if you are giving it to people up to $50k a year with families that tells you the tax system is wrong and we are being taxed to much in the first place. So in that respect I disagree with Key.

I use to vote Labour believe it or not but what really pissed me off most about this Government is the feeling they want to put people on welfare from the cot to the grave in the optimistic hope that they might vote for them in the future.

I believe there is nothing better than to have a welfare system that is there as a saftey net not as a all in compassing beast that is soley being used to buy votes.

To me financial freedom not Welfare dependancy is the best thing that everyone can strive for whilst recognising that for some they will have to always have it. Labour keep increasing the number that will become welfare dependant and that is wrong.
Steve Pierson 24

28 July 2008 at 2:05 pm

Rob. Working for Families is tax credits, not a benefit.
Matthew Pilott 25

28 July 2008 at 2:34 pm

Rob, a few points.

Prison escapes – these are down significantly under Labour. One tangible of the prison system, I’m sure there are other measures out there that are better than your biased opinion.

There’s no evidence that ACC was doing well when accounts were opened for competition, and there’s evidence it’s a bad idea. PWC seem to think so.

Vast amounts have been spent on roading infrastructure. Some would argue not enough, others argue far too much. Still, there are a lot of big things underway – have you taken a look at road funding under the last National government to this Labour government? Doubt it.

I generally don’t call people liars, Rob, but I just don’t believe you when you say you voted Labour. If you did, you clearly didn’t give it much thought at all. Your comments strike me as being from someone fundamentally oppposed to the welfare system at anything above the level where it stops poor people from dying.

To state that something such as WfF (which gives you your own tax back) is welfare is disingenuous.

To then say it’s merely a reflection of an unfair tax system further illustrates your abhorrence of a functioning welfare system. It is a targeted tax credit, targeted to help children, and their families. It is a reflection of the economic cost of having a child. Chaging the tax system wouldn’t have that effect at all.

But to suggest Labour encourages welfare dependancy in order to garner votes is truly pathetic – if you ever voted for Labour, you sure ticked the wrong box – you clearly have no idea what Labour is about, not by a mile. You might want to consider that welfare numbers have dropped significantly under Labour (despite your patently false comment to the contrary), so either you’re wrong, or they don’t know how to keep us poor suckers on the benefit. I doubt it’s the latter.

You’re literally clueless, you don’t even know what the welfare system is!
Anita 26

28 July 2008 at 3:03 pm

Rob,

Let’s say I am single, earn $60k, and have no dependants. And my colleague Robin earns $60k which is the sole income in their two adult three child house.

Robin’s family clearly needs money far more than me. What is wrong with a system that takes some of my $60k and gives some of it to them?

We can call it welfare, we can call it a tax credit, we can call it an investment in the future of Robin’s children, we can call it insurance against the kids turning out badly, we can call it whatever we like – but fundamentally it’s fairness.
Pascal's bookie 27

28 July 2008 at 3:04 pm

I generally don’t call people liars, Rob, but I just don’t believe you when you say you voted Labour. If you did, you clearly didn’t give it much thought at all.

Bloody Eustabee’s.

I can’t remember where I read it, but an American blogger has had great fun at the expense of the…

“I used to be a Liberal Democrat, but 9/11 changed everything, so now I’m pissed off about Chappaquiddick”

…brigade.
Rob 28

28 July 2008 at 3:15 pm

Anita fine if there is some incentive to get ahead but there is none people want to stay on certain income brackets so they don’t get punished with tax.

If you work another job whats the tax take then about 70 or 80 cents in the dollar. So there is no incentive for those that want to work harder or be industrious because they get the sh## taxed out of them by this Labour Government.

What signal do you think it sends to the young educated better head off over seas so you don’t pay so much tax.

Then we end up filling our country up another 10000 Indian service station workers and Cab drivers.

At the end of the day its not a crime to earn good money people aren’t all bad or rich pricks if they do most of them actually keep the country going pay a substantial amount of tax more than should.

We cant afford to lose them at the rate we are or we wont even have a welfare system or anyone to pay for it. That is where Labour has the balance wrong and its ideologically driven so it wont change.
Anita 29

28 July 2008 at 3:20 pm

Rob,

I think Labour could have kept the Prisons under a State / Private partnership but no they had to drag them back and assume control. That hasn’t been a stunning success lets look at the corrections department a cot case.

Actually there was only ever one privately run prison and it remained privately run until 2005. It was no more of a success (or less of a cot case) than equivalent publicly run prisons; it was, however, more expensive.

I can give you all the ideological reasons why private prisons are bad, but it wasn’t a practical success either.
Quoth the Raven 30

28 July 2008 at 3:23 pm

Who would have guessed you’re a racist as well Rob?
Anita 31

28 July 2008 at 3:24 pm

Rob,

So you’re saying you’re fine with WFF in principle (whether it’s called a tax credit or welfare); your only problem is that the clawback is too steep?

As an aside, does anyone have a good source for tables/graphs of the clawback rates? Fiddling with the calculators I’ve never managed to find a 70-80% tax-plus-WFF-clawback rate, which may just mean I’m looking at the wrong part of the scale.
Rob 32

28 July 2008 at 3:32 pm

Anita

Did anyone escape from that Prison using sheets during that time period? Or was anyone murdered on the way to that prison or seriously assaulted at that prison.

There is no incentive for anyone to work harder and get ahead I believe you will find if you get a second income and go above the threshold rates the claw-back is horrendous
Steve Pierson 33

28 July 2008 at 3:33 pm

Anita. Wikipedia and my memory tell me it’s 20 cents in the dollar over $35K. It’s true that can amount to a high effective tax rate if you’re earning over $60K (for every dolalr earned – 20 cents of your WfF and 39 cents off your income), but only because you’re starting with a net tax rate of close to zero at $35K for a large family.

And it applies to a small group of people – those who have large families, meet the work conditions for WfF and have a big disparity in incomes so one of the parents is earning over $60K but their combined income is not so high that they get no WfF at all.
Matthew Pilott 34

28 July 2008 at 3:36 pm

Rob, I agree with you there actually, about a second job. i’m not sure of teh rationale behine a higher tax rate for a second job but they seem to be taxed at a fairly high rate.

One thing to consider is that your primary job is taxed at the marginal rate, taking into account the lower tax rates. So if you have one job earning, say, $50,000, the effective tax rate is around 23%. If you got another job, you would have to pay the full 33% on that job, because you have already had your first incomes taxed at the lower levels.

Same thing happens with a bonus payment – it is all taxed at the highest marginal rate because your paye tax on your salary has taken th elower tax brackets into account, and teh bonus is on top of that, hence it is all taxed at the highest rate you are earning at.

If a secondary job is taxed at a higher rate then there’s something about the system I don’t understand, or is perhaps not fair. However, I very much doubt secondary tax is 70 or 80 percent as you suggest.

Just like to point out to you that National hasn’t said anything about addressing this point.

I also think people are more ‘industrious’ than you give them credit for. Would you like to earn $60,000, have a top tax rate of 33% and take home about $45,000, or earn $100,000, have a top tax rate of 39% and take home about 70,000? No-brainer – unless your brain happens to be filled with muddy misperceptions about how the tax system works.

Finally, your basic premise that people are taxed too much is the equivalent of a three year-old not wanting to go to bed. The least you could do is point to where all this money is being wasted, but I suspect this would be a frutiless excercise.
Steve Pierson 35

28 July 2008 at 3:36 pm

Rob. escapes from prisons have fallen dramatically since Labour came to power from 100 a year to 20 http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/a/f/6/48HansQ_20080318_00000596-9-Prison-Inmates.htm
Rob 36

28 July 2008 at 3:39 pm

Steve I am aware they have and I know that Labour has invested or blown budgets to pieces in prisons I was talking about that particular prison
Anita 37

28 July 2008 at 3:48 pm

My memory is that secondary jobs are 39% PAYE but in truth only taxed at the normal rate, so you can expect to get a refund at the end of the year unless you’re on 39% in your first job.

This is a function of the PAYE system. Your primary employer calculates your PAYE as if it was the only job you did. Secondary employers can’t see how much you’re being paid by your primary employer so don’t know how much the right amount of tax is, so they tax at the highest possible rate and you get it back as a refund.

If they didn’t do that either you’d have to tell all but one of your employers how much you’re earning from all your other employers, or almost everyone with a secondary job would end up with a tax liability at the end of the year.

The PAYE system is designed to make sure you pay at least what you owe each pay so you never end up owing the government. They try to keep it as close to accurate as possible but err on the side of taking too much and refunding.

This is the purpose of that silly flowchart on the back of the IRD form you fill in for each new employer.
Matthew Pilott 38

28 July 2008 at 4:02 pm

Anita – cheers for that (I didn’t think 80% sounded right). It makes sense to overcharge, imagine the problems if people were consistently under-charged and had to pay a tax bill at the end of each financial…
Anita 39

28 July 2008 at 4:05 pm

Rob,

During the period ACRP was in private management at least one person escaped.

The media coverage is old (May-Sept 2003) so a bit patchy. It looks like Nilesh Chandra was remanded in prison on one set of sex charges and a separate rape charge. He “slipped his handcuff and fled guards” and turned up in a shipping container in Fiji three months later.

I don’t know whether it matters that a sheet doesn’t seem to have been involved.
Steve Pierson 40

28 July 2008 at 4:08 pm

Rob. You’re only taxed at a higher rate on a second job in your PAYE. Your actual tax due for any year (ignoring rebates etc) is simply your total taxable income * by the appropriate tax rate. If you’ve paid too much because of the high rate on second jobs, you get a rebate.

The reason that second jobs are taxed at a higher rate is that PAYE doesn’t know your total income stream as it is being earned, so it’s impossible to know what the correct PAYE rate for your earnings should be across all streams. So, instead, your primary job is taxed as if it’s your only income and a second job (and interest, and dividends) are automatically taxed as if they fall in a higher bracket. Why? Well, the alternative is for PAYE for your second job to also tax that job as if it’s your only income – but since it’s actually added to the income from your first job, the tax due will be higher than would be collected that way – so anyone working a second job would end up needing to pay tax at the end of the year. Pragmatically, IRD knows it’s easier to collect some extra tax and pay it back then collect too little and chase taxpayers for it later.
Quoth the Raven 41

28 July 2008 at 4:08 pm

Steve I am aware they have and I know that Labour has invested or blown budgets to pieces in prisons I was talking about that particular prison

So you must be unhappy with National’s promise to build a new prison. Generally I agree with you though. The higher prison population has come about because of tougher sentences that labour introduced. I would have preferred a focus on rehabilitation not the lock em up and throw away the key attitude that some people have and which labour seems to have acceded to.
Rob 42

28 July 2008 at 4:11 pm

Quoth the Raven

Not a racist just a realist Quoth have you been into any Garage in Auckland at the moment without an Indian employee?

Have you seen any cab rank in Auckland without an Indian cab driver.

I am told we have the best educated Cab Drivers in the World. I don’t see stating facts as being racists

Quoth here is one you probably don’t know though check this out.

When Labour paid back the $850,000 last year after they caught ripping the tax payer off at the last Election.

Where do you think all that money came from??

How much do you think came from the Indian Business community in New Zealand?? Y

ou may be surprised how much came from them ask Mike William’s there are a few people in the know about it.
Do you think they might want anything for that donation Quoth or was it just given for love.
Matthew Pilott 43

28 July 2008 at 4:25 pm

Rob, you are an (un)interesting mix of lies, untruths and false premises. Over $670,00 was raised from Labour MPs, as a proportion of their parliamentary salaries. Have you said one thing on this thread that wasn’t bigoted, uninformed or just plain wrong? Don’t think so.

[lprent: I think you’re right. He does appear to be some kind of boring fart with little real knowledge. You also notice that he avoids debating all corrections to errors in his comments.]
The Double Standard 44

28 July 2008 at 5:33 pm

Reassuring to see that your debating tactics are following the usual model Matthew – personal abuse does seem to be a characteristic of this place.

“Too busy” to release the student loans bribe – come on, do you really expect anyone to believe that line?

Also, It is pretty obvious that few here actually need to have more than one job – I guess those govt and union jobs pay enough already eh?

The secondary tax rates are variable depending on expected income

‘S’ tax code is taxed at 22.4% (21% tax and 1.4% earners’ levy)
‘SH’ tax code is taxed at 34.4% (33% tax and 1.4% earner’s levy)
‘ST’ tax code is taxed at 40.4% (39% tax and 1.4% earners’ levy)

and are not automatically at 39%. Sheesh!
Robinsod 45

28 July 2008 at 5:42 pm

You’re a fine one to complain about abuse wee man given your history of commenting here tds/santa

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=481#comment-1356

Oh and TDS, considering you’re pulling $70k in the Nat’s research unit I’m guessing you should be the last one to talk of well paid jobs.

Say hello to Francis for me.

X
Quoth the Raven 46

28 July 2008 at 5:56 pm

Rob – You never adress the issue you just move along to something else. This time you jump topic to some crack pot conspiracy theory. So the stupidly tough immigration laws labours come up with recently are evidence of some Indian invasion conspiracy. If not a racist you’re a xenophobe then. Are you at all concerned about your own party of choice’s donors? Righties like you always accuse people here of being overly partisan here but when I try to get you to be non-partisan for a moment you decide not to even address it but come out with some outlandish accusation. You either agree with the tougher sentences (which I don’t agree with) that have been introduced under this government or you don’t. With longer sentences you need more prisons which costs lots of money. You seem to take issue with that spending so what of National’s plan to build a new prison, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars? Or does that not bother you because you’re just a partisan hack as I suspect?

The Double Standard – Student loan bribe aye; I suppose you’re unhappy with National keeping it then.
Felix 47

28 July 2008 at 5:57 pm

Quoth the Raven:

Who would have guessed you’re a racist as well Rob?

Ooh ooh I did. I didn’t say anything but I totally guessed – like, ages ago. I remembered reading somewhere that racists tend to have a preternaturally flimsy grasp of punctuation. Weird huh?
Matthew Pilott 48

28 July 2008 at 6:39 pm

TDS, tell me that last comment of mine wasn’t justified… Unlike your little dig about where people work – keep the personal stuff out of it will you.

Anyway, Labour had a sustained period of policy release – National sure can’t use that excuse can they? Or do you know a little more than the rest of us about how long it takes Key and English to write up an A4 page of vague bullet points (or in the case of Key’s $50 murder, rape and pillage fee, scribble a half-baked idea on the back of a napkin)? I suppose there is an art to it, putting so little information out.
Paul Robeson 49

28 July 2008 at 6:45 pm

The other possibillity is that John Key doesn’t have any real underlying moral values, and likes money, acquisition and status.

For these reasons is the perfect representative of the National Party.

He is a former currency trader dedicated to winning the status of NZ prime minister. He will take whatever route is necessary to achieve this but really has no values that aren’t negotiable for the end.

He dislikes Labour as it has a clear value platform of looking after the most vunerable in society and of supporting New Zealand wealth staying in New Zealand.
The Double Standard 50

28 July 2008 at 7:49 pm

MP: Justified? Who knows. Probably about as well justified as the one Mr Porton linked to. After all, he is the one who leads the abuse register around here still I guess?

Mickey Porton: Wow, you can use google search now eh? I’d go dig up some of your vile filth, but I really can’t be bothered, and it makes Tane grumpy for some reason.

Paul R: See, you prove my point about rabid lefties wanting to assign a set of values to Key so that they can then attack those values. If the best epithet you can come up with is ‘Currency Trader’ then you probably need to read the posts and comments here a little more often. Click on my linked website if you need some help.

TDS.
Robinsod 51

28 July 2008 at 8:00 pm

Hey TDS – get with the play – it’s Dylan now. Mike Porton is soooo 2007.

Oh and no TDS/Santa, I’m not the most abusive here. Alas I could never compete with the deranged chimps that wash up here from KB every so often. Especially after they started cracking down here. You should feel free to comment on my blog if you want a taste of the good ol’ days Santa but then again trolling my site probably isn’t covered in your job description…
Felix 52

28 July 2008 at 10:21 pm

MP

I suppose there is an art to it, putting so little information out.

Policy as haiku, perhaps?
Robinsod 53

29 July 2008 at 7:22 am

We will change nothing

except those things we will change

look! We’re ambitious!
Pascal's bookie 54

29 July 2008 at 7:42 am

When cold winds do blow

Some must be fed to the fire

We’ll be alright, Jack.
Robinsod 55

29 July 2008 at 7:49 am

here: some bullet points

yes, they are ambiguous

it’s called “small target”
Pascal's bookie 56

29 July 2008 at 8:03 am

Keep it under wraps

best not frighten the horses

Spokesmen! Do Not Speak.
Rob 57

29 July 2008 at 8:24 am

Great Herald Digi Poll for National and John Key today. Shows how popular John Key is with New Zealand

70 seats in the House would be a great result for National. Helen will be ruing the Truckies Protest. The anti spend time with the kids comments against John Key and the whole Winston saga.

Doesn’t that Labour trend line look so ugly!! for Labour

Maybe now Labour will come out with the Student universal allowance Election bribe. Just another $750 mil on bribes
max 58

29 July 2008 at 8:26 am

Labour just keep shooting their mouths and feet off.

Ain’t no cure for unbridled arrogance, eh Labour? .. !
Anita 59

29 July 2008 at 8:30 am

Robinsod & Pascal’s Bookie,

You guys are awesome! 🙂
max 60

29 July 2008 at 8:33 am

They clock up double digit IQ’s between them all right
Pascal's bookie 61

29 July 2008 at 8:56 am

a max shows min wit

and inserts his only joke:

“Get a brain, moran’s..!”
Rob 62

29 July 2008 at 9:05 am

I figure you Labourites need some humour to cheer up what otherwise will be a depressing day for you keep up the Jokes Pascall & Robinsod
Quoth the Raven 63

29 July 2008 at 10:26 am

Still refusing to take me up on the prison issue aye Rob. I see you haven’t even bothered to defend your little conspiracy theory either. I think you’re the one in need of cheering up since National has decided to keep so many Labour policies of late. And I’ll ask you again since you seem to forget the questions people ask, like your party leader forgetting his party’s principles in his race for power: Are you not at all concerned about National’s donors?
Rob 64

29 July 2008 at 10:59 am

Great move today by Lianne Dalzell see front page of the Herald Business Section. She has just appointed someone to the Board of the Commerce Commission who is being investigated on Fraud charges. Now that is really bright!!
Just goes to show again that most Labour mps don’t have a business brain in their head. At the end of the day its just par for thoe course on the way trhis Government is tracking.
Ps this news didnt come from Crosby Textor either
Phil 65

29 July 2008 at 11:20 am

Labour rants and moans;

“John Key stole our teflon suit

Helen used to wear!”
Steve Pierson 66

29 July 2008 at 11:25 am

Phil. you used to have intelligent contributions to make, now you’re sounding like dad4justice.

Here’s why I think that is. Every time you come here, you can see a graph or an argument that exposes something you don’t want to believe – National is bad for ordinary Kiwis because it is the bosses’ party, the Left has done well, and could do better, for ordinary Kiwis. You’re unable to refute the evidence in front of you, so you’re falling into denial at an emotional, rather than intellectual level.

You’re a smart guy – rather than becoming d4j why not examine whether the reason the evidence you see doesn’t match your premises is because your premises are at fault?
Anita 67

29 July 2008 at 11:47 am

Rob,

Great move today by Lianne Dalzell see front page of the Herald Business Section. She has just appointed someone to the Board of the Commerce Commission who is being investigated on Fraud charges. Now that is really bright!!

Reference please.

I have looked and I can’t find that on either the NBR site or any other news website.
Anita 68

29 July 2008 at 11:49 am

Phil,

You’re now up there with Robinsod and Pascal’s bookie in my political haiku ranking 🙂

I reckon we need more haiku – they make me smile (and that’s something I need today 🙂
Rob 69

29 July 2008 at 11:55 am

Anita

Read New job slap in the face for investors re Don Curtain its in the paper so is no secret just seems very dumb thing to by Lianne Dalzell cant really believe she did it
Anita 70

29 July 2008 at 12:01 pm

Rob,

Found it.

According to the Herald, Curtin was – until last week when the ownership changed – chair of the investment board of Vestar. A group of investors in Vestar are said to preparing a case against Vestar, its directors and its investment board. The case is said to be about the quality of the advice and investment decisions. There is no mention of any regulator, SFO or Police interest, nor any mention of fraud.

So nothing at all like what you said. In fact I think what you said may well be defamatory as well as horribly inaccurate.

Can I point out that every fact you’ve asserted in the last two days that I’ve checked has turned out to be bogus. If your constant inaccuracy is accidental perhaps you should start fact checking yourself.

If not… *sigh*
Rob 71

29 July 2008 at 12:11 pm

Anita

Why do you think Don and Lianne weren’t available for comment

It states he was Chairman of the Vestar group which is being investigated for the possible loss of 250 million of investors funds.
The case is likely to include breaches of the fair trading act which is monitored by the commerce commission (wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest)

I ask Anita does this seem a very wise appointment at this time in anyone’s right mind.As its been published I’m sure there will more comment on this has already hit the airwaves on Talk back this morning
gobsmacked 72

29 July 2008 at 12:29 pm

SP, I think Phil was giving us a haiku. Don’t discourage the poets.

Winter verse warms us
But to pay for those tax cuts,
freeze the Arts budget.
Anita 73

29 July 2008 at 12:34 pm

Rob,

It states he was Chairman of the Vestar group

No, chairman of the investment committee – a very different thing.

which is being investigated

No, there is no mention of it being investigated. A group of clients are preparing a case – again a very different thing

for the possible loss of 250 million of investors funds.

No, the case is about advice and investment strategy.

So you have
1) been inaccurate
2) had that pointed out to you
3) replied without acknowledging your inaccuracy
4) introduced new inaccuracies

It is not hard to fact check, it is not hard to make sure you accurately reflect a newspaper story, it is not hard to avoid making groundless assertions, it is completely normal to acknowledge when you get things wrong.

P.S. If I cared about the appointment, the thing I would be interested in would be the pointer about election date.
Rob 74

29 July 2008 at 1:47 pm

Anita

You obviously think that Lianne can do no wrong has made a wise choice. That there will be no conflict of interest when and if a case arises which looks likely from Newspaper reports. We will watch with interest.

I take it from you that you would make the same appointment knowing the facts.
Anita 75

29 July 2008 at 6:23 pm

Rob,

1) You said a whole bunch of untrue stuff
2) That was pointed out to you
3) You said a whole bunch more of untrue stuff
4) That was pointed out to you
5) You said some untrue and unfounded stuff about my beliefs.

This is me pointing it out to you.

Have you considered sticking with the truth?
Rob 76

29 July 2008 at 6:29 pm

Anita

You haven’t answered my question is it a wise choice how would you feel if you were an investor like the one that came on talk back?

Don’t you believe if a person who is appointed to the commerce commission on the board may face a conflict of interest if the company they previously worked for is being investigated. Please answer the questions
Anita 77

29 July 2008 at 6:35 pm

Rob,

If I were a Vestar investor I might be grumpy. I (this me, not the hypothetical me) am, however, unable to judge whether than grumpiness would be reasonable.

I believe that the Commerce Commission investigating a company a board member has been involved in may create a conflict of interest. There are really good guidelines as to how that conflict would be managed, I have no reason to believe the guidelines wouldn’t be followed.

Your turn…

Can you please

1) Acknowledge that you have made plenty of factual errors here and in many other comments.

2) Commit to being truthful and accurate in future.
Robinsod 78

29 July 2008 at 6:51 pm

Alas, Anita, Rob is a cock and as such you will get no such response from him. Apparently it is incurable although, unfortunately, not terminal.

And now let me express this in the ancient art form of haiku:

Rob you are a cock

As your every word confirms

Ineluctably
Anita 79

29 July 2008 at 6:55 pm

‘sod

Facts tumble between
fingers busy in debate.
Or dishonesty.
Robinsod 80

29 July 2008 at 7:00 pm

Very nice. Probably a little metaphorical for our right-leaning friends, though…
Anita 81

29 July 2008 at 7:00 pm

*sigh* there’s a better four syllable word for that last line, but I have a reputation to uphold 🙂
Quoth the Raven 82

29 July 2008 at 8:54 pm

Haiku is one comparison to draw with National policy. To me it reminds of this scene: American Psycho: Business Card Scene.