Integrity or hocus pocus

Written By: - Date published: 9:32 am, November 20th, 2011 - 59 comments
Categories: climate change, john key - Tags: , ,

I have no sympathy for politicians complaining about their ‘private’ political conversations being made public. What politicians say on politics is inherently of public interest. Don’t say different things in private than in public, and you won’t get caught out. It’s a matter of integrity. We can now reveal what John Key really thinks about climate change.

Key has made a strong show of playing down National’s more extremist ideas. For instance, in 2005, Key said:

But by the time he was leader, Key was trying to convince us he was more centrist, not some whack-job climate change denier:

“The scientific consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and it’s threatening the planet. There are some armchair sceptics out there, but I’m not one of them.’ (Northern Regional Conference, 13 May 2007)

“I firmly believe in climate change and always have. Like most New Zealanders, I take the risks posed by climate change seriously. The scientific evidence indicates that the world is getting warmer and, if this does not change, the results could be catastrophic – for our society as well as for our environment.” (28 Nov 2006, Nine to Noon, National Radio offline)

I believe that human-induced climate change is occurring (16 Dec 2008, Parliament)

But had Key really changed, or is he telling us one thing in public while saying another in private?

You probably don’t remember Glenn Jameson, the objectivist who did National’s billboards last election and was National’s Creative Director but reader put us on to a discussion he had with Jameson on the Amazon.com (of all places) community discussion boards where he says John Key told him that climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW) is “hocus pocus”:

“I didn’t ‘assist’ in the ad campaign, James, I was its Creative Director—-and it wasn’t a campaign for a NZ politician, rather the National Party itself. If you’re going to troll into my personal life at least have the decency to get your facts straight. And for the record, Prime Minister John Key told me himself that he thinks AGW is a load of hocus pocus… he’s being a pragmatist, shoring up the green vote that has long evaded the conservatives.”

“A lot of people believed AGW back in ’06, who don’t now. It was clear to me during the election that JK had (at least privately) changed his tune. But I can hardly be held responsible for his post-election pragmatism, can I, James?”

[note: Jameson has since come back and edited this post on the forum to remove the hocus pocus line and writing: “it’s possible that I was in breach of a confidentiality agreement, so to be safe I have removed a comment made to me in private by John Key” – further proof of that his account is accurate]

We were intrigued by Jameson’s claim, so an account was set up on Solo Passion, the objectivist hangout run by Lindsay Perigo, to shake out more information. Here’s the exchange:

Participants: Glenn Jameson and Yvonne Thomson

Yvonne Thomson
2010-08-24 18:16

Hi Glenn,

A friend sent me a link to your posts on that Amazon forum. Did John Key really tell you that he knows AGW is ‘hocus pocus’?

What exactly did Key say?
Yvonne

Jameson
2010-08-24 22:18 New
People are actually reading that embarrassment of a ‘debate’… bloody hell. : )

It’s true, Yvonne, Key did say that he thought AGW was rubbish — or hocus pocus — can’t remember his exact words

G

And there you have it. The campaign designer for National in the last election confirming that Key told him he doesn’t believe in climate change and is just faking it to convince you, dear voter, to support him.

It kind of explains why National’s climate change policies always seem to be a weakening of the existing framework, eh?

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern of behaviour from National. The Hollow Men documents, the 2008 secret agenda tapes, the tea tapes, and now ‘hocus pocus’-gate. We keep on finding out that National is trying to keep its true beliefs and plans secret from the public.

It all comes down to honesty and integrity. Do we deserve better than a PM who will lie to us to trick us into voting for him?

59 comments on “Integrity or hocus pocus ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    20 November 2011 at 9:42 am

    And Russel Norman, Blue-Green at heart, buys the line. So funny.

    • Shane Gallagher 1.1
      20 November 2011 at 10:48 am

      – ‘Yeah, right”

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        20 November 2011 at 11:07 am

        Norman wants the MoC position in Cabinet, no matter which party is leading the Government.

        • Ari 1.1.1.1
          20 November 2011 at 11:25 am

          If you really think the Greens would go into coalition with the National Party as it is now, you are sorely mistaken. Remember, it’s not up to Russel Norman whether they accept a deal, it has to be voted on at a meeting that represents ALL Green Party members.

          • BLiP 1.1.1.1.1
            20 November 2011 at 1:22 pm

            National Ltd™’s assault on the environment is relentless – look what’s been going on just recently

            http://www.boprc.govt.nz/news-centre/media-releases/november-2011/dairy-compliance-falling-on-deaf-ears/

            Bay of Plenty Regional Council is concerned the importance of environmental compliance is falling on deaf ears for a portion of the farming community. This follows three cases heard in the Tauranga District Court yesterday relating to pollution reaching waterways.

            http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/11/10/dams-will-damn-our-rivers/

            Fed Farmers have welcomed National’s $400 million water storage and irrigation investment announced yesterday.
            Of course Fed Farmers would. Damming rivers to store water for irrigation means farmers can convert more land to dairying, which is highly profitable at the moment.
            But Fed Farmers pretend that damming rivers to store water for irrigation won’t hurt the environment.

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/4580805/Dam-blamed-for-river-ruin

            Fisherman Ray Brokenshire fears it will be too late in five years to save the Opihi River from the effects of degradation.

            The Temuka man is involved in plans to create an Opihi River group and wants concerned people to contact him to discuss river issues, including problems caused by the toxic algae phormidium.

            “A lot of us at our age remember what it was like. What we are trying to say is it’s in an awful state.”

            An Environment Canterbury (ECan) warning remains in place cautioning people to avoid the river at State Highway 1 because of the risk of exposure to toxins from phormidium, and some anglers will no longer fish in the river because they say the fish are smelly and inedible.

            As of yesterday an ECan warning was also in place at Waipopo. A warning at the Saleyards Bridge has been removed.

            Some South Canterbury anglers have blamed the growth in phormidium on a design feature of the Opuha Dam.

            Barry Stone told the Timaru Herald last week the algae increase was a result of how the dam company took its water, which was by a single-take and not a multiple-take system.

            http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/rma_consent_process_perspective_from_waikato_regional_council_0.pdf

            Government statements re: RMA delays are flat out bullshit

            http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/10/30/uranium-yellowcake-in-nuclear-free-new-zealand-ports/

            National Plays down risks of yellow cake shipments passing through New Zealand waters

            . . . and on and on and on. Oh, yeah – and Rena.

            The only reason I can see why a Green Party member would vote for snuggling up to the John Key Muppet Show is to act as a brake on further degradation.

          • felix 1.1.1.1.2
            21 November 2011 at 9:47 am

            Trouble is, Ari, that the meeting vote you’re relying on is the same people who wouldn’t vote to rule out working with National. That’s a matter of record.

    • Jim Nald 1.2
      20 November 2011 at 10:50 am

      Russel Norman: National’s greenwash?

  2. lefty 2
    20 November 2011 at 10:12 am

    A lot of the new, smart, modern blue/greens are in the climate change business for the money. They are riding on the back of policy put together by a previous generation who had a strong set of guiding principles.

    Who knows what they really believe in apart from getting rich.

    Norman is to the Greens what Tony Blair or Roger Douglas was to Labour.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      20 November 2011 at 11:13 am

      Norman is to the Greens what Tony Blair or Roger Douglas was to Labour.

      +1

      He also sold out an entire network of green activists and logistics, over the sticker issue, at the drop of a hat – simply because he wants that Minister of Conservation position. His genuflecting to Key around that was sickening.

      A month ago with rising polls, Green activists were continually skiting about how the Greens were now the true power on the Left and how Labour had lost its way.

      Now its quite clear that the Greens are moving to become a more centrist party which holds environmental priorities. Greenwash indeed.

      • weka 2.1.1
        20 November 2011 at 11:35 am

        Obviously they’re a more centrist party, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing so well in the polls. But I’m not sure they’ve sold out at a policy level in the way you suggest. Can you give some examples?

    • Rodel 2.2
      20 November 2011 at 8:50 pm

      YES. Yes! CV Your likening him to Tony Blair ) I’m an Anglican while I’m PM but really I’m Catholic)
      sums up Russel Norman for me.

  3. higherstandard 3
    20 November 2011 at 10:20 am

    I have it on good authority that John key as actually responsible for all global warming, it is all part of the silurian grand plan to take back the planet………. mwha ha ha ha.

    • Eddie 3.1
      20 November 2011 at 10:32 am

      Simple question: are you happy that John Key is saying he thinks climate change is a serious problem to the public while saying it’s hocus pocus behind closed doors?

      Are you glad to vote for a liar?

    • Galeandra 3.2
      20 November 2011 at 4:02 pm

      higherstandard is an oxy-moron, and is generally much larger than the usual variety. If you ignore him you will find his fleabites won’t itch as much. He’s more troll than droll.

  4. ianmac 4
    20 November 2011 at 10:50 am

    Or maybe should some interviewer (if you could get Key to front up!) playback his words, and read the hocus pocus quote and ask him is it true? How does he think now? Guarantee that the word “dinnamick” would be used.

  5. Sunny 5
    20 November 2011 at 10:50 am

    …And Nick Smith says he had no idea his Ministry was costing the benefts to NZ from dropping the ban on Genetic Engineering ( esp of food)…Another Tui moment.

    As was said when they were taped at the drinkies last election…why do Politicans get so upset when they get caught telling the truth. They seem perfectly happy to get reported telling lies

  6. coolas 6
    20 November 2011 at 10:52 am

    Integrity is at the core of the ‘storm in a tea cup’ saga. Key obviously said stuff to Banks that contradicts his public brand image; he revealed his duplicity and deceit, and that’s why he’s over-reacted. Eddie’s post is yet another example of how Key operates. He says what people want to hear while pushing his real agenda behind the smile and wave. Key represents the worst aspects of human nature. The guys an utter fraud and hopefully next Saturday see’s the end of him and his band of treacherous, two-faced wreckers.

  7. Bill 7
    20 November 2011 at 11:10 am

    I’ve no doubt that Key has two faces when it comes to the issue of AGW. But running a post on the basis of hear-say?

  8. Bill 8
    20 November 2011 at 11:15 am

    I’ve no doubt that Key has two faces when it comes to the issue of AGW. But what’s with running a post on the basis of hear-say?

  9. anne 9
    20 November 2011 at 1:00 pm

    lol,key now warning that voting for winston will see us back at the polls within weeks,he is running scared,he may be feeling victory for ‘unbridled power’ slipping away,key will do
    anything,the hope i have is that on tuesday the judge rules in favour of public interest and key
    was trifling with the law for his own personal reasons,if it is delayed,then that is justice delayed.

    • freedom 9.1
      20 November 2011 at 2:40 pm

      Most Politicians hate these crystal clear moments that occassionally arise. The fleeting godfingers of light where the public realise MMP might actually be seen functioning in our Parliament. They sit sobbing how unfair it will be if their defacto FPP governments are shown up for the wannabe dictatorships they are.

    • Carol 9.2
      20 November 2011 at 2:43 pm

      I do agree Key seems a little panicked.

      But I don’t think the judge will deliver any kind of definitive judgement on Tuesday. From the legal opinions I’ve read, there’s not enough certainty around some key concepts and their application to this case. I think the judge may lay down some ground rules about what the police investigation needs to establish, then say the investigation needs to take its course.

      The next week needs to focus on policies, Key’s shakiness and the lack of detail in National’s policies, raising issues of trust (or lack of it).

  10. mike 10
    20 November 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Is anyone here surprised? The Bush administration did the same thing. Changing their tune and acting concerned about climate change. While at the same time doing nothing about it and eagerly openning doors for any environmental rapist ready to line their pockets.

    John Key lies, lies, lies. And it works.

  11. BLiP 11
    20 November 2011 at 1:34 pm

    National Ltd™ – 100% PURE BULLSHIT.

    Talking about AWOL Ministers, where’s the Minister of Tourism? Oh, here he is:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-grilled-over-NZs-clean-green-image/tabid/1216/articleID/210532/Default.aspx

    . . . trying some hocus pocus.

  12. Jan 12
    20 November 2011 at 3:23 pm

    What is this rubbish about Russell Norman genuflecting? He had no option but to criticise the action taken to satirise National Party posters. To do otherwise than the ritualised apology (in the tediously stylised format that the media reads as sincere) would have seen the Greens torn apart.

    If National don’t get 50% – and I truly, deeply hope they don’t – and the Greens hold then balance of power then a governance arrangement between them and the Greens which shuts out the option for asset sales, implements the green jobs agenda and takes some real action on climate change would be a real coup. In such a situation were to arise they would be insane to put their Deputy Leader in Conservation. Are you kidding? If that happy situation eventuates they should settle for nothing less than the Ministry of Economic Development – oh and probably Agriculture and Fisheries and Ministry of Research Science and Technology as well as the Min of SOE’s.

    The Nats strategy now is to minimise the votes loss to the Right – ACT – and maximise it to the left of them – NZ First. It there’s a 4% loss of votes to NZ First as there was last time then they’ll still have a majority with 56.1% of the party vote.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      20 November 2011 at 3:55 pm

      What is this rubbish about Russell Norman genuflecting? He had no option but to criticise the action taken to satirise National Party posters. To do otherwise than the ritualised apology (in the tediously stylised format that the media reads as sincere) would have seen the Greens torn apart

      Norman was gutless. All he needed to say was:

      We do not condone the vandalism of any party’s billboards. If Green Party members are found to have been involved, our Party disciplinary mechanisms will come into play accordingly. But please note, we also do not control the actions of individual party members. They must take individual responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

      As for the rest of your response: yep. Norman has his eye on Cabinet, no matter whether it is a blue or green one.

      And if it is with National, I trust it will rip the activist heart of the Greens.

    • Colonial Viper 12.2
      20 November 2011 at 8:22 pm

      If that happy situation eventuates they should settle for nothing less than the Ministry of Economic Development – oh and probably Agriculture and Fisheries and Ministry of Research Science and Technology as well as the Min of SOE’s.

      Pretty much figured that the Green Party leadership has become power hungry and will go into coalition with National as required.

    • Rodel 12.3
      20 November 2011 at 8:56 pm

      Rubbish Jan.. He’s come back to NZ to save us . Genuflecting is exactly what he’s doing. If I were a Green I’d be cringing.The Greens appear to want to do a Sharples and suck up to the Nats for baubles but I don’t think the real Greens want that…I could be wrong.Maybe they do want to go into coalition with National.
      Then they’re not really Green, just a shade of blueish green.

      • Colonial Viper 12.3.1
        20 November 2011 at 9:09 pm

        The Green leadership is preparing for their turncoat moment. Expect the usual platitudes, being able to wield influence by having a seat at the table etc.

        • Ianupnorth 12.3.1.1
          20 November 2011 at 9:32 pm

          Like those wonderful people at that bastion of credibility called the Maori party

          • Jan 12.3.1.1.1
            20 November 2011 at 11:52 pm

            Power hungry politicians – well I never ;-0. There are many potential poisoned chalices in government. If power was a possibility and a “principled” Green Party” turned it down I guess that would raise their poll ratings and future electability? No I thought not. As for the, purely hypothetical, assessment above asserting that the Green Party would concede to and vote for policies that work against their constituency. That’s an unrealistic view as well. Politics is the art of the possible and there would be stalemates and trade-offs, wins and losses.

            Green businesses making money. How perfectly horrid Lefty! In my view far too few green businesses are making all that much money in NZ while the policy settings are stuck in the muck of the carbon economy. I’d far rather that green businesses are making money whatever the political stripe of the owners than lignite mines and oil wells.

            • Colonial Viper 12.3.1.1.1.1
              21 November 2011 at 12:10 am

              Ah I love it, the NZ Green Party now the Party of Greenwash Capitalist Wealth.

              If power was a possibility and a “principled” Green Party” turned it down I guess that would raise their poll ratings and future electability? No I thought not.

              So you’re telling me that the Green Party could increase their future electability by giving away their principled stances, and moving instead to a kind of centrist capitalism? One which will draw in new upper middle class voters even as it burns off your worthless working class and underclass activist base?

              Yes, I believe that could be quite true. I don’t doubt you. Good to see you Greenies have learnt from John Key’s ‘pragmatic’ approach to politics.

              • Jan …
                21 November 2011 at 11:40 pm

                So the Greens shouls step away from power if it is in their grasp in fear of becoming tainted – is that what you are suggesting?

                The Greens are proposing that its possible to create 100,000 Green Jobs. If creating green jobs in businesses is that is a move away from their principled stances it’s an interesting one.

                Ideological purity is great – but doesn’t achieve much. If the Greens were to hold the balance of power then a robust extra parliamentary voice from the greens and the broader left would help somewhat to keep them accountable. Declaring a sectarian red/green warwouldn’t be particularly helpful. Would it? I’m interested to have this discussion.
                Labour’s vote is being cut by the Greens – but there is no debate about bringing together the disparate strengths of the red and the green under whatever circumstances might pertain post election. Properly handled it is a potential strength not a weakness. Alternatively the Left and the Greens could spend a generation in the wilderness – thinking of say for example Italy’s Left and Berlusconi.

                • felix …
                  22 November 2011 at 12:03 am

                  If the Greens think National is going to follow through on any promise they might make to create 100k green jobs, they’re dreaming.

                  The furthest they’ll go is some kind of glorified work-for-the-dole scheme doing riperian planting on privately owned dairy farms. Probably find a way to pay the farm owners for the privilege too.

                  But as long as Russel gets his ministerial post and his flag back, that’s fine, right?

                  • Jan …
                    22 November 2011 at 6:44 am

                    Just a few observations.
                    One of the big mistakes that the Liberal Democrats made following the recent UK elections was to underplay their hand in the coaltion talks and take the “feel-good” Ministries with no power.

                    One of the mysteries of the National Government’s policies – commented on by many observers – is why the Nats have been so dumb about the environment – favouring instead big oil, big coal, mining and sunset industries. It’s bought them the only big fights of the last three years. I’ve assumed that it’s their lack of enthusiasm for even the kinds of intervention that could benefit New Zealand enterprises.

                    • felix …
                      22 November 2011 at 7:38 am

                      I don’t think it’s all that mysterious. They simply have no vision beyond enriching themselves and their class in the same ways they’ve always done.

  13. newsense 13
    20 November 2011 at 3:37 pm

    More from the Key we know and love on ‘trade and the economy’:

    “Mr Key was mobbed by schoolchildren as he opened the triathlon and signed hundreds of t-shirts.

    One pupil remarked: “I’m never going to clean my t-shirt ever again.”

    Other children squealed at John Key but when asked what he did, did not know.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767443

    • Uturn 13.1
      20 November 2011 at 5:04 pm

      It’s what you get when you bring your kids up on a diet of pop culture. It’s like they think the English language is a set of phrases from Hollywood movies. Designed to be used on life events that superficially appear to match film scenes, each phrase, response and behaviour is false. Culture at it’s worst, breeding narcissism, emotional retardation and destroying genuine thought.

  14. Z 14
    20 November 2011 at 9:00 pm

    I’m glad this thread is about “integrity”.
    Let me show you the kind of “integrity” that Labour has at the moment –

    Labour have been distributing a pamphlet with a picture of a young child, and with the words “Under National, you won’t be around to celebrate her 1st birthday.”
    The first thing that occurred to be (on reading that) was that I wouldn’t be around because I’d be dead, and I’m sure many others would have thought the same way.
    Well done, Labour. You have just set new standards in dragging a campaign through the darkest, dirtiest depths of the gutter. Not only do you deserve to be thrashed at this election – you don’t deserve to get anywhere near power EVER AGAIN.

  15. Mark 15
    20 November 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Colonel Viper
    “They must take individual responsibility for their own decisions and actions.”
    I agree, but does this just apply to Green Party Members, or society as a whole? 

  16. Ianupnorth 16
    20 November 2011 at 9:36 pm

    Did anyone see this story? http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10767255
     

  17. Jimmie 17
    20 November 2011 at 9:39 pm

    Slightly off topic (but not really) when I look at the standard’s home page and scroll down through all the various postings what do I see – overwhelmingly – I see John Key’s face. I see headings about him, his policies, more pictures of him.

    It’s like you guys over the last few days (thinking of most of the authors in general) have become fixated on slagging John Key and talking about him. The same with most of the leftie posters Why? Where are the posts (few and far between) praising Phil Goff, buzzing about Labour’s great policies, and even talking up the left parties in general?

    This is having the effect (same as the publicity over the teacup saga) that at this election there is only one candidate getting massive publicity – the dreaded John Key.

    It aint working -change the tune please!

  18. Afewknowthetruth 18
    20 November 2011 at 10:25 pm

    I am no fan of Key or National but we should note that Labour’s record is no better than National’s, and note that the majority of Labour’s policies are founded on denial of climate change, denial of peak oil, and further wrecking of the future via so-called ‘development’, plus relentless support for the banksters’ Fractional-Reserve-and-Compound-Interest Ponzi scheme, of course.

    After all, Labour polciy is all about ‘economic growth’, ‘jobs creation’, ‘regional development’, blah, blah, blah, none of which are possible without increased consumption of fossil fuels*, increased emissions and increased creation of money out of thin air via the international bond market.

    This time round I haven’t heard of any party or candidate campaigning on a manifesto of powerdown and permaculture. (The Greens pretend to be dealing with the major issues of the times via various non-solutions which attempt to sustain the unsustainable and come under the general descriptor of greenwash.)

    So the next generation is ‘screwed’ whichever combination of ‘clowns’ forms the next government.

    People living in NZ will probably be slightly less ‘screwed’ in the short term than people living elsewhere in the world.

    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

    But longer term we are on track to exceed the A2 scenario

    “The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100.”

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/node/82219

    However, the International Energy Agency recently flagged the probability of a 3.5oC increase by 2035. That corresponds with no ice in most of the regions of the world where there is currently ice.

    No worries, Keep driving. Keep flying. Keep using gas barbeques and gas outdoor heaters. Throw out last year’s crap from China and buy some new crap from China …. after all, it’s the economy. Gotta have economic growth whatever the cost..

    *almost certainly impossible now that we are post peak oil, but perhaps possible in NZ in the very short term if we do enough drilling and fracking and create enough ‘funny money’ out of thin air to pay the oil importation bill.

    • Campbell Larsen 18.1
      20 November 2011 at 10:30 pm

      The election is 6 days away AFKTT. Pick a party or stand yourself. Or stop complaining.

      • Afewknowthetruth 18.1.1
        21 November 2011 at 10:07 am

        CL

        Not ‘complaining’. Just pointing out the truth.

        After standing three times I worked out it was impossible to change ‘the system’: most people are far too ignorant and stupid.

        • McFlock 18.1.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 11:52 am

          So are you restricting yourself to “I told you so”?
            
          Some people fight the losing battle simply because the right thing to do is to try. Others play the fiddle as the city burns. The latter group of people are known as “jerks”.
           

        • Campbell Larsen 18.1.1.2
          21 November 2011 at 12:08 pm

          Apologies AFKTT, I too am concerned that economic growth, globalization/ free trade and consumerism are still being promoted as the way forward when there is ample evidence to suggest that they are unsustainable.
          The elections are an opportunity to support the party that is most likely to address these concerns, there may not be one that suits you perfectly however they are not all the same. You can make a difference by supporting the party that most closely represents your views – it’s not a perfect system by any means, but circumstances demand that we use every tool available.

          • Rob 18.1.1.2.1
            21 November 2011 at 12:23 pm

            If economic growth is not a way forward for you Campbell, then who or what is going to pay for all the state instigated programmes that you feel they should be doing.  Do you not see the irony in what you have been asking. 

  19. Nick K 19
    20 November 2011 at 10:30 pm

    You guys have not come anywhere in three years, have you. Then it was “all about trust”. You ran all this bullshit then, and Clark got hammered. You’re still doing it and Goff is at 8% personally and Labour about 25%.

    Far be it for me to give you campaign advice, but I thought I’d politely offer in the last week.

  20. Campbell Larsen 20
    21 November 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Rob. Expensive state programmes? – if you have some specific examples from my comments that you would like to discuss then feel free to list them – but I will put this forward: the wealth being drained from NZ as a result of the last round of neo liberal reform could pay for everthing on my wish list several times over. Then there is the ongoing rort of the banking system and global financial system.
    Your weak claim that ‘only growth can make our dreams come true’ does not withstand scrutiny. It has not made our dreams come true, it makes poor people poorer and rewards the already wealthy and fucks the environment at the same time.
    Irony is you implying that the money from economic growth actually goes towards promoting social good – even as wage rates, working conditions and workers rights are all cut or eroded away. Irony is you suggesting that economic growth is the only way forward when science tells us that we live in a world of finite resources.

  21. Jameson 21
    15 December 2011 at 8:31 pm

    In a thread about integrity you post a private message between myself and an undercover stooge. Appears the standard on the Standard is bald-faced hypocrisy.

    • lprent 21.1
      15 December 2011 at 9:28 pm

      I haven’t looked at this before in any detail, but what I see is :-

      1. A topic that is clearly of public interest coming up in a public forum.
      2. You requesting that people check their facts on one forum.
      3. Them doing so with a direct question on another forum.
      4. Us publishing it more than a year later

      I can’t see any laws being broken, any facts in dispute,  nor anything else that as sysop I have to concern myself with. If you want to complain about it, then I’d suggest you do it with something more specific..

      And the thread is about politicians not saying things in private that they wouldn’t say in public. It is in the first paragraph.

      I have no sympathy for politicians complaining about their ‘private’ political conversations being made public. What politicians say on politics is inherently of public interest. Don’t say different things in private than in public, and you won’t get caught out. It’s a matter of integrity. We can now reveal what John Key really thinks about climate change.

      As far as I can see Eddie has operated with complete integrity, documented where and when the conversations took place, and left an opportunity for you to answer in comments (at least for a few more days – comments automatically close 30 days after the post is published). I’m sure that he’d also be happy to write a post with your responses if you care make them*.

      However it doesn’t sound to me like John Key has operated with as much integrity.

      * Provided those responses are on topic and intelligible. Based on your previous comments here in 2008 they should also not look like you’ve been dosing yourself on something.