It’s not lying, it’s ‘dinnamic’

Written By: - Date published: 7:07 am, November 1st, 2011 - 94 comments
Categories: election 2011, john key - Tags: , ,

According to John Key in the Leader’s Debate, it’s OK to break your promises because the world is “dinnamic”. I’ll have to try that next time I’m out late on the piss:

‘Sorry, I’m late love, yeah sorry I didn’t cook dinner like I promised. I went out with the boys and things got dinnamic … Whadaya mean I have to sleep on the couch?’

94 comments on “It’s not lying, it’s ‘dinnamic’”

  1. tc 1

    Acshully it’s zoo dinnamic labour ran defecits apparently despite treasury and the rest of the world seeing surpluses that paid down debt……now that’s dinnamic.

  2. That was pathetic excuse for deliberately lying to the electorate. Ackshully*, the world economic situation was well known from at least mid 2008. Both parties should have pulled tax cuts off the political agenda because it was quite clear that they were going to need the revenue as the growth that they were predicated on wasn’t going to happen..

    * how many did mr dinimatic say ackshully? It seems to be his signature for I am about to try to bullshit you again….

    • just saying 2.1

      I think the technical term is it is his “tell” (or one of them).

      There is a TED talk up at the moment on recognising when someone is lying. In Key’s case I think we need help identifying those rare moments of honesty.

    • Carol 2.2

      Kind of like Brash saying “frankly”.

      • conorjoe 2.2.1

        actually at the end of the day the reality is ‘dynamic’.

        i can show you other research which shows its not global warming ( not a recession, not my problem, not my fault, not my responsibility, not much fun any more…)

    • King Kong 2.3

      I remember you got quite scathing last election when those of a right wing persuasion were criticizing Helens voice and diction. Something along the lines of pathetic children scrambling for real issues to target I think.

      • lprent 2.3.1

        I always get scathing when I run across idiots. I guess that is why you remembered that detail. I must have embedded it deeply.

        But read my comment carefully. I realize you find this hard concentrating on the salient point rather than on some crap that you think is important. But I’m sure you can do it if you’d only try…..

        I was pointing out the ‘tell’. I’m pretty sure that John Key slurs over the word “actually” whenever he is about to tell another lie or to speak some exaggerated bullshit. It was extremely noticeable in the debate last night because he must have said it 20-30 times.

        (just saying – thanks for the correct word)

      • felix 2.3.2

        “I remember you got quite scathing last election when those of a right wing persuasion were criticizing Helens voice and diction.”

        Really? People criticized Helen’s “diction”?

        “SHE SOUNDS LIKE A MAN SHES A LEZZER” is not a critique of diction. Keep banging the rocks together, monkey man.

    • mike 2.4

      He’s also fond of “The fact is that…” and “The reality is that…”

  3. Dv 3

    But i distinctly recall that the Nats were quized iabout the tax cuts and how could they afford them with the impending problems.
    Their reply was that they had projected the costing and effect and the tax cuts would be fine.
    Has any one access to quotes by English or Key?

  4. ‘Sorry, I’m late love, yeah sorry I didn’t cook dinner like I promised. I went out with the boys and things got dinnamic … Whadaya mean I have to sleep on the couch?’

    What about “sorry I’m late home when I said I would be, I had a car crash”?

    “We have had to reassess what needs to be done due to the finiancial crash being worse than anyone knew it would be”.

    The Lange government is famous for making major changes that weren’t “promised”, but most people agree that drastic action was essential.

    The world is dynamic. Political bitching isn’t.

    • toad 4.1

      The GFC wasn’t even one of the Nats’ excuses for breaking the GST promise though – it was supposedly all about a “tax switch”

    • Your homework today PG,
      The Financial Tsunami by F Engdahl. Not that I will hold my breath but hey maybe someone else will pick this up.

    • Oh, PG – tax cuts were a basic part of National policy (and of any party of the right in most places in the world).
      Because of the GFC it would not have looked “fiscally responsible” if they had given tax cuts. So they tried to dress it up as a “fiscally neutral” “Tax switch” by adding to the already predetermined tax cut policy an increase in GST.
      There are a number of things we know about this that are true……
      Tax cuts for the rich was inevitable with the election of a National government.
      The GFC made it look irresponsible so it was linked to an increase in GST
      Making all NZ pay for the tax cuts for the rich was the outcome.
      There was no “switch”, (as Treasury has reported) as it leave NZ $1 bn plus in the hole.
      We have to borrow from overseas, sack people in the public service, cut back on services (health education social service) to pay for it.
       
      It had nothing to do with the dinnimac world situation. The only dinnamic situation was “Who is going to pay for the tax cuts?”

  5. tsmithfield 5

    If Key is a liar then Goff is both a liar and a hypocrite.

    He had a publicly stated position opposing increases to the age of superannuation back as recently as July this year. However, now he has back-flipped and decided to increase the age. Sure, Goff might claim changing circumstances forced his change of position. But Key could claim exactly the same with respect to GST.

    So Goff is a liar on the same basis for calling Key a liar. He is a hypocrite for calling Key a liar when he has just committed a major porky himself.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

      ROFLMAO! Quick, tell Penguin and Whale, this is a brilliant argument that all Kiwi’s need to hear, because if all they have to go on is Key’s performance, they’ll remember that they saw and heard him lying through his teeth. They need your analysis to get their minds right again.

    • Colonial Viper 5.2

      ts: diddums.

    • ahh yes the classic ‘i know you are but what am i’ defense…

      grow up smithfield.

    • He had a publicly stated position opposing increases to the age of superannuation back as recently as July
       
      Nope.  He said:
       
      “We think that we can avoid that alternative through the mechanisms that we’ve put in place in the past that the Government has stopped funding – the Cullen Fund – and through a policy that’s not a one-off sale of state assets, but one that will raise tax revenue on an ongoing basis.”
       
      Question I also asked Gormless, when someone says think do you really think they mean promise?

  6. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6

    In July Mr Goff was saying the retirement age would not be increased. Three months later it is part of a “bold and responsible” plan. A lie? Response to a dynamic world? Making it up as he goes along?

    • Nah, get the actual quote gormless, then argue the point.

        • mickysavage 6.1.1.1

          Yep he said:
           
          “We think that we can avoid that alternative through the mechanisms that we’ve put in place in the past that the Government has stopped funding – the Cullen Fund – and through a policy that’s not a one-off sale of state assets, but one that will raise tax revenue on an ongoing basis.”
           
          It is clearly not a promise.  It was the hope that Labour could hold the line.  Obviously subsequent events have persuaded them otherwise.
           
          Serious question when someone says think do you really think they mean promise?

          • Andrew Scobie 6.1.1.1.1

            Or like when Michael Cullen said that no more than 5% of tax payers would pay the top tax rate of 39%? On your assertion, that was surely a lie?

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10126280

            • fmacskasy 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Andrew, if more than 5% eventually paid that higher rate, it was probably due to bracket creep, with that article you linked to refers to. Which means that wages and salaries had risen since 1999. The article you link to is dated 2005 – about six years later.

            • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.1.2

              Desperate Andrew in the extreme.  When the tax change was made only the top 5% did pay it. 
               
              Good attempted diversion though.  I will also ask you the same question.  RWNJ’s have been saying repeatedly that Goff promised not to increase the age of eligibility.  But the quote said that he thought that Labour could avoid it.
               
              When someone says think do you really think they mean promise?
               

              • Andrew Scobie

                “When the tax change was made only the top 5% did pay it”

                yea maybe for that tax year. but year on year after that more and more people got caught in the top tax bracket. Labour campaigned that no more than 5% would pay the top rate. In the end 1000’s of families got caught in it, flooding the government accounts with cash. bracket creep or not, doesn’t make a difference, the top tax bracket should have been adjusted every year so that only the “rick pricks” paid it.

                to your question, i agree that when someone says “think”, it is not a “promise”. But cunning politicians always know how to phrase an answer to give themselves wriggle room should they have to change their position. Key was dumb not to, and most likely a reflection of his immaturity as a politician.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Meh the new families who got caught up in the tax rate creep would have paid fuck all extra a year.

                  Three or four hundred dollars per annum. Or less. Big frakin deal.

                  • Lanthanide

                    “Three or four hundred dollars per annum. Or less. Big frakin deal.”

                    I agree the actual dollar figure extra would not be much, over the 33% rate.

                    However, particularly those paying a student loan back at an additional 10%, high marginal tax rates do depress incentive to take on additional work or work longer hours etc.

                    A 6% difference, while not huge, also isn’t something you should simply write off.

                • But cunning politicians always know how to phrase an answer to give themselves wriggle room should they have to change their position.
                   
                  So let me get this right?  It is not important what Goff actually said but what is important is what you think he may have intended to say?

            • The Voice of Reason 6.1.1.1.1.3

              What seat is Michael Cullen standing for, Andrew? I have this nagging feeling he isn’t a politician any more, which kinda makes your diversion less, er, diverting.

              • Andrew Scobie

                nothing of the sort … i am just pointing out examples of politicians being ‘elaborate with the truth’. whether or not they are a current MP makes no difference to my argument.

                JK gets slagged off for ‘lying’ about GST. I’m just showing examples of bastions of the left wing being elaborate with the truth as well.

                I could list a bunch of backtracks from current Labour MP’s, but chose to pick an oldie but a goodie.

    • Gormless; there’s a vast difference between making a committment PRIOR to the election, and breaking it later.

      Labour has adopted a new position on super prior to 26 November, and put it out to the public.

      Key made his promise on GST prior to the 2008 and put it out to the public. But then he changed it AFTER the election.

      Big difference.

      But hey, if you don’t mind the politician you support breaking their election promises, that’s your business I guess.

  7. g says 7

    the truth is that which does not change.
    perhaps mr goff could tell mr key that at their next exchange.
    that could give him the chance to highlight the ‘slipperyness’ of mr key.
    slippery john has a ring to it.

  8. One Anonymous Bloke 8

    I think we need some sort of an award for mangling language. A dinnermick trotie, akshully.

  9. marxbrother 9

    This reminds me very much of Bill Rowling and Piggy. Rowling was a decent human being who worked very hard on policy and relationships; who genuinely seemed to care about his country; who had given years of service to NZ, against a mean spirited egomaniac who relies on media manipulation and sound bites. Seems the voters are lying to themselves again. People touchingly want to believe their PM and many can’t deal with the fact that he is a lying chancer who is on an ego trip, hasn’t lived in NZ most of his life and who will no doubt bugger off as soon as he’s rejected. Interesting to see the look on his face last night when challenged- angry and indignant that someone dared to question him. The thin veneer of niceness nearly cracked. On policy alone it is clear to most that Labour have the answers but historically NZ votes for the strong man…

  10. Lanthanide 10

    On morning report this morning they ran with the soundbite “Goff accuses Key of lying over promising not to put up GST before the election”. Repeated every 15 minutes or so.

    They asked two people what they thought of the debate, one said it was boring and nothing new, the other said Goff was either equal or just a shade ahead and since he’s come from so far behind that makes it a win for him.

  11. Tombstone 11

    I assume that people voted for Key last time based on his election promises – fair assumption? That being the case how is it that he can break those promises willy nilly and the very same people who voted for him based on his original promises still give him the big thumbs up regardless? I’m inclined to think that National supporters will quite simply swallow any pill Key hands out to them like some sort of mindless cult who have all succumbed to the mystic powers of Voodoo Key. National supporters are fucking weird if you ask me. Key is like a a talking corpse the way he stands there with that glazed over look and those half moon eyelids as he tries to sell us one lie after another through gritted teeth and a gob full of lisp inducing spittle. He reminds me of Mr Burns for some reason. Mean, detached and power hungry. Key may have looked calm during last night’s debate but snakes usually do whereas Goff showed some early, very human nerves but still laid into Key and savaged him like a true battler would and I think when all was said and done Goff came across as a man of conviction and integrity whereas Key simply came across as a slime ball. God help us all if National get back in for a second term. I think this country, if National return to power will see more and more people take to the streets, with possible riots and civil disobedience taking place as National continue to attack and strip back workers rights and pathing the way for a slave economy. Dark days ahead? The Slave Economy this way comes.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      I’m inclined to think that National supporters will quite simply swallow any pill Key hands out to them like some sort of mindless cult who have all succumbed to the mystic powers of Voodoo Key.

      As research has shown – that’s exactly what they’ll do. They will go to any lengths (rewriting history, lying, cheating etc) to defend their “leaders”.

      The Slave Economy this way comes.

      That’s what the majority of people will be if National and Act get their way.

    • Lanthanide 11.2

      The people that really got Key over the line were those who “wanted a change” and thought “Labour had had long enough”, in other words Key provided a blank canvas on which they could project their own wishes and aspirations for the future on to, so they voted for him.

      It’s commonly cited that in NZ we don’t vote for new governments, we vote the old ones out.

  12. Curious 12

    Can someone please post a link to Key’s full quote regarding GST increases.

  13. One Anonymous Bloke 13

    Goff was much better prepared. Key shuffled his notes – Goff didn’t even need any, and it showed. Key has a set of stock idioms he relies on, and what I can tell you is this, Goff’s answers sounded much more genuine as a result.
    It was also obvious that Key simply makes things up, perhaps with a little more forethought than Jenny Shipley, but there’s more than a shade of Monckton about him. Goff was able to call him out a couple of times, and that’s what made the original liar tag stick.
    I missed the start, and as Goff apparently improved over the course, I was thinking I got a better impression of him (not to mention my confirmation bias) but even Fairfax have him as the winner by a nose, and as everyone is saying, to come from so far behind…first the campaign opening video, now this, people are going to start feeling good about voting Labour again.
    Goff will find it harder going in future encounters – people will now expect more from him. What an awful position to be in 😀

  14. tsmithfield 14

    Anyway, Whale oil has been kind enough to remind us of some recent porkies from Phil Goff. That is without having to trawl over his long political career which I am sure would unearth quite a number of gems.

    As I said above, if Key is a liar then Goff is worse. He is both a liar and a hypocrite, for accusing others of being liars when he can be proven to have be as much or more so of a liar himself.

    As the saying goes, those who live in glass houses… Goff was stupid to use the word “liar” because I suspect it may well come back to bite him in the bum over the next few weeks.

    • The Voice of Reason 14.1

      And drunken sailor, TS? Would you agree that a pisshead accusing Goff of drunkeness might come back to haunt him too?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2

      You just don’t get it do you? Brand Key was already vulnerable after smearing Standard and Poors in the House. Now he’s been called a liar, to his face, on tv, no amount of post-hoc blubber can fix that, especially not “so what if he tells lies so does the other guy.” You’ve already conceded the point – Brand Key can’t be trusted. The attempt to justify it makes you look like you can’t be trusted either.

      • tsmithfield 14.2.1

        Where have I conceded the point? Show me where I agreed that Key had told lies?

        Anyway, if the many lies of Goff are made public it will have far worse effect on his already marginal public persona since he took a very self-righteous stance in making the accusation himself. I think people have an innate sense of fairness and would expect anyone making an allegation to be squeaky clean themselves.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.1

          Oh lol. All you wingnuts have been talking about for the last three years is “Phil Goff’s just a career politician, he’s flip-flopped all over the place…”, and then some version of the usual wingnut truthless narrative. You think you’re going to make mileage out of it now? The debate’s over boys, Goff won, you lost, eat that.
          And if you haven’t noticed everyone else has moved on – Brand Key’s got some bennies to bash, and a business community that thinks he hasn’t got a plan to explain himself to, and I seem to remember something about explaining is losing.
          Trotie party leader seeks new employment.

    • TS you did not answer my question.  Slater says that Goff promised not to raise the age of superannuation entitlement.  It is clear from the quote above that Goff did not.

      So are you saying that when someone says think do you really think they mean promise?

      • tsmithfield 14.3.1

        Probably a moot point as to whether that is strictly a lie or not, as there are plenty of examples to show where he has actually lie. For instance his “memory lapse” about the SIS briefing. So my point is valid anyway.

        • mickysavage 14.3.1.1

          No it is not a moot point.  It is a classic example of the sort of attack politics that Slater uses.  Twist the english language out of shape, say it is proof of XYZ and then stick to the theme.
           
          Back in July Goff said he thought that we could get by without increasing the age of eligibility.  That is definately NOT a promise.  So your point is not valid.
           
          Yours is a conclusion that refuses to be shaken by reality.
           
           
           
           

          • tsmithfield 14.3.1.1.1

            On a similar basis Key didn’t lie about raising GST either.

            If he had said that he would never raise GST under any circumstances then I would agree that Key had lied. However, he qualified his statement at the time, so he hasn’t lied because he didn’t contradict the conditions of his qualifications.

            For example, if I said that I would never buy a car for the purposes of doing burn-outs down the street, but then went out and bought a car for going to work, have I told a lie about buying a car? Same with Key’s position on GST.

            Anyway, you didn’t answer my point about the other more clear examples of Goff lying. All that is needed is one example of Goff telling a lie to make my point. That is quite easy to do.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.3.1.1.1.1

              “..he didn’t contradict the conditions of his qualifications”.
              Haha fantastic! Next time you lose explain, try and sound less like a criminal defence attorney.

            • mickysavage 14.3.1.1.1.2

              Nope.
               
              1.  Goff did NOT say he would not increase the age of eligibility.
              2.  Key DID say that he would not increase the rate of GST.
              3.  Key DID raise the rate of GST and did so to give tax cuts to the rich.
               
              And I believe Goff when he said that he was not properly briefed.  Do you really think that if he had been told about details of the Israeli spies he would have been relaxed about it?
               
               

              • tsmithfield

                He said he wouldn’t raise GST for the purpose of raising new revenue. He didn’t raise GST for this purpose as it was budgeted fiscally neutral. Therefore he didn’t lie. Fairly easy concept to understand, even for lefties.

                “And I believe Goff when he said that he was not properly briefed.”

                He started off asserting vehemently he hadn’t been briefed at all. Then unequivocal documenation was released showing he had been briefed.

                That is about as clear example of lying as you are likely to get.

                If you still believe Goff after this, then you probably also believe in the tooth fairy.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  “….it was budgeted fiscally neutral” and we now know that “budget” was another bunch of lies. Would you like a spade?

                • Well he did raise new revenue which he then used to give tax cuts to the rich.
                   
                  And do you think Goff would be told about Israeli covert action and be uninterested?
                   
                  The documents do not prove a thing.
                   
                  Besides we seem to be getting away from the point.
                   
                  Do you agree that politicians should not lie?
                   
                  If so RWNJs appear to think that both Goff and Key lie and lefties think only Key lies.  Not a good position to be in.

                  • tsmithfield

                    Most people think the only time that politicians aren’t lying is when their lips are still. So, probably most viewing the debate last night would have labelled Goff a hypocrite without having to think any further.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      You still don’t get it do you? Brand Key has made much political capital from the perception that he isn’t “just another politician” – itself another lie. Now people have seen him making throat cutting gestures while a man attempts self harm, we’ve seen him defame Standard and Poors and his feeble excuses, and his answer is that we live in a dinnimic (I think that’s closest phonetically to his mumbling) environment.
                      Brand Key took a huge hit last night, and it was the guy who was supposed to be the also-ran that delivered it, and he didn’t have to read from a script to do so. Don’t you hate it when the other actors start improvising and you’re revealed as a talentless hack?

                  • insider

                    “Last year I undertook to sell the property. I will do so.” from ‘Statement by Phil Goff – Investment Property’. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1012/S00326/statement-by-phil-goff-investment-property.htm

                    According to his register of interests he still owns it more than two years after committing to sell. The market hasn’t been that bad.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      So all you have to do now is demonstrate that it isn’t on the market and you’re still wasting your time because everyone else has moved on.

                • Lanthanide

                  He said he wouldn’t raise GST for the purposes of balancing the budget.

                  Then he says they raised GST to offset the tax switch.

                  These statements are contradictory. If he had not raised GST, then the budget would have been unbalanced. Therefore he raised GST to balance the budget that now included a significant tax cut for the wealthy.

                • lprent

                  …as it was budgeted fiscally neutral.

                  I see that you’re still repeating that lie.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  He didn’t raise GST for this purpose as it was budgeted fiscally neutral.

                  That’s what NAct told you but, as tax “switch” has never been fiscally neutral and actually couldn’t be (take away lots on one hand and add a little on the other) that means NAct was lying then as well.

                • logie97

                  here’s a chance to hear and watch what he did say …

            • mik e 14.3.1.1.1.3

              read my lips key
              no new taxes
              repeated many times before the last election
              he lied about saying it only on RNZ

    • seeker 14.4

      Goff didn’t use the word liar TS – Key did . Goff never called Key a liar, he just spoke about the fact that Key had not told the truth about his pre election ‘seeming pledge’ that National would not raise GST and said that that was a lie because National did raise it. Pre election promises are important because they are what people base their thinking and trust on when they vote a party into office. Hallowed ground almost. Key and National seemingly ‘scoffed at that ‘hallowed’ ground and just said anything popular that would get them into power.

      Goff was honourable enough not to call Key a liar, just pointed out that what he said about GST before the election was not the truth . He spoke of Key’s behaviour in that instance, not his personal charming quality of being a liar. That WOULD have been something to draw a deep breath about.

      *Have just looked at the recording I made and Goff said “You broke that promise John, that was a lie .Key said he had’t been called a liar before and respected the opposition too much to call them such (didn’t stop him making a throat slitting gesture at them tho’). Goff said he respected the office of Prime Minister while Key carried on trying to appeal that he had been called a liar, and Goff just kept saying in a reasonably gentle yet firm way. almost as if to a petulant child “But you have to tell the truth John, you have to tell the truth……..

      Good for Goff, helping Key out, as it is obvious from the last three years that Key needs reminding to tell the truth as he often appears to forget and he doesn’t want to be seen as being a liar now does he ?

  15. Jester 16

    You guys really amuse me. I know, you know, Goff and key know and every sane voter knows that Goff has as much chance of being PM as he has of winning american Idol.

    He has 0% chance! zero, nothing, ziltch!

    Get over it, move on with your lives for gods sake. All this hate and envy will eat you up inside.

    Its over for Labour. Three more years.

    The fat lady has sung and Elvis has left the room.

    • Lanthanide 16.1

      Actually we don’t “know” that because the election hasn’t happened yet.

      Also iPredict now has Goff being PM at 10% probability, after it has been coasting along 5-6% for several months now.

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see it top out at 15% or so if there’s a slight improvement in the polls.

      Labour looked almost certain to get a majority in 2002 and yet it all fell away at the end. Nothing is over until the fat lady achully sings.

      • Jester 16.1.1

        Lanthanide, Thank you for coming in for your tri-annual reality check.
        Take these two pills and call me in the morning.

        I aways recommend and prescribe anti-delusion pills for those that find themselves lost in a void.

        Dr Reality

        • Lanthanide 16.1.1.1

          I’m just telling you about iPredict, which is a market where people can predict on the outcomes of things happening. People on iPredict have put their money where their mouth is.

          If you don’t like the 10% rate, go sell that stock on the market and make yourself a sweet 140% return on an annualised basis.

          • lprent 16.1.1.1.1

            Or you could just go and find a pokie machine for a system that is harder to manipulate. You’ll lose either way, but you’ll have more fun on the pokie machine.

            • Lanthanide 16.1.1.1.1.1

              I’ve currently made $250 ‘profit’ on iPredict so far. If Labour win, it’ll be many hundreds more.

              I’m very unlikely to have made that on a pokie.

        • mik e 16.1.1.2

          jester don,t count your chickens before they hatch
          Jinxed Key will muck it up like he’s done with the economy you and your supporters have been living in a fools paradise 20.4% undecided voters!

          • Jester 16.1.1.2.1

            Hmmm…major fail last night Mike.

            14 billion and 1 chickens…..14 billion and 2 chickens….14 billion and 3…………………….

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.2

        Fat lady? Careful Lanth that’s a gendered and sizist metaphor you’re employing there. Stoutists unite – you have nothing to lose but your chins 🙂

  16. Blue 17

    Ackshully, we live in a dinnamic invironment, and wen I say that I wood only sell a little bit of the asset, you kin trust me! Have I ever lied to you?

  17. McFlock 19

    So according to our local tory advocates, Key is a good PM not for his inspiring leadership, his sound economic management, his ability to coordinate nation-wide responses to emergencies. Key is a good PM because he doesn’t lie as much as slimey cetaceans claim (very doubtfully) that Goff does.

    Well THAT’s a brighter fucking future right there – Vote Key, he doesn’t lie quite so often as the other lot.

    Note: I’m not calling Goff or Key liars, just pointing out the direction of the comments. It would seem to me that toryboys have not slid the debate so well as they might have.

  18. ianmac 20

    From Dimpost Key said :
    “Yeah, National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes…What I’m saying is if we do a half decent job as a government at growing our economy I’m confident that [raising GST] won’t be happening and that’s not on our agenda.”

    This means that not only did Key tell a lie then, but that last night he lied about his lie.
    I think that that is significant.

  19. chris73 21

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_River_Mine#Approvals_history

    On 12 March 2004, Minister of Conservation Chris Carter approved the access arrangement for Pike River Coal Ltd. The arrangement included four 1.5-metre (4.9 ft)-wide emergency escape shafts within the boundaries of Paparoa National Park and a requirement for Pike River Coal Ltd to spend NZ$70,000 annually on conservation projects. Carter stated that the “safeguards and compensation” outweighed the inconsistencies with objectives of the Conservation Act 1987 and the relevant management plans.

    I’m guessing that when Goff said about never mining in a national park he wasn’t lying?

    Or would he pin the blame on Chris Carter

  20. DJL 22

    Focus on the “emergency escape shaft” and “safeguards”
    Is that mining?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    14 hours ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago