John Key – Liar

Written By: - Date published: 6:59 pm, February 17th, 2011 - 182 comments
Categories: john key - Tags: ,

John Key and his government have told us a series of lies over the new BMW fleet. One by one they have been disproven. No, we weren’t locked in to a three year contract. No, there was no penalty payment if we didn’t go ahead with replacement. Yes, the government did know all about it, Ministers were involved last year.

As the truth slowly closed in Key (desperate to protect his personal brand) spun one last line, that he didn’t know about the impending replacement until last week (video). Is that credible? John Key is the Minister responsible (for Ministerial services). While the public service is supposed to be subject to line by line budget checking and austerity measures Key didn’t know about this multi-million dollar purchase? That stretches the bounds of credibility.

But now it turns out that Key was taken for a ride in a sample replacement vehicle last year (video). And that’s where the bounds of credibility shatter.

John Key has been lying through his teeth on this issue and he’s been caught out. Maybe now we will be able to look past the nice guy act and start to examine some of the other lies he has told us…

182 comments on “John Key – Liar ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gobsmacked 1
    17 February 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Is Kevin Taylor on holiday? Because this is some of the worst media management we’ve seen from Key.

    A couple of years ago Key would have said “Aw shucks, bit of a cock-up” and grinned and the questions would have stopped on day one. Now he’s just keeping the story alive all week, with constantly changing stories and contradictions. And the media seem (finally) to have decided to do their job, and hold the PM to account.

    I can only surmise that the arrogance of power is intoxicating him already. It happens to all leaders eventually, but usually they wait until they’ve been re-elected before it all goes to their heads.

    Keep this up, and he could lose the unlosable election yet.

    • Bunnykinz 1.1
      18 February 2011 at 1:29 am

      “the media seem (finally) to have decided to do their job, and hold the PM to account.”

      I’m sorry, but I think you spoke too soon on this:
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4666893/Many-governments-own-fancy-cars

      This article is a weird combination of validating National’s decision to spend millions on their vehicles:
      “Zipping around in luxury European vehicles is not the sole domain of New Zealand ministers, with many foreign governments owning fleets of fancy cars. ”

      And then trying to pin the blame on Labour:
      “I expect value for money … people have to push the blame back to the Labour government who bought them in 2007.” – Key

      The one question I can’t believe no one has asked is, what kind of friggin’ Ministry spends this kinds of cash on cars without consulting their Minister for the OK? Isn’t it the Ministry’s role to implement the policies of the Government of the day, not making decisions on the non-binding policies of past governments? Should we be concerned that apparently Ministries hold National Ministers in such disregard that the don’t bother consulting them on decisions such as this?

      Please correct me if I am wrong (and any spelling errors too of course)

      • Deadly_NZ 1.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 10:38 am

        But did you read the comments section after the article??? they (all 13) slam JK for lying and one even goes to point out that most were european countries (and in germany a beemer aint too expensive ) and something about GDP that makes a good point as well.

      • Akldnut 1.1.2
        18 February 2011 at 12:09 pm

        The next press release will be a conspiracy of ministry workers/labour members or afilliates have done this without consulting the minister. (My spin doctoring)

  2. Marty G 2
    17 February 2011 at 7:31 pm

    It’s the lies that get you.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      17 February 2011 at 8:15 pm

      To quote my boyfriend: “in politics, it’s always the coverup that does the most damage”.

      • ZeeBop 2.1.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:59 pm

        You mean the no GST lie? Or the 50,000 shares oops sorry 100,000? Or the fair and balanced tax cuts that raise the burden on lower and middle deciles (by lowering the top rate)?
        Its classic politics of cheap oil, cover one turd blossom with another. Unfortunately for Key the booming economy isn’t there to distract citizens and feel it doesn’t matter if their govt, say lies them into Iraq invasion. As we all feel the pain of food and oil prices, fear of joblessness, defaulting on mortgages, the lies accumulate showing how utterly out of touch Shonkey is.

  3. the sprout 3
    17 February 2011 at 7:31 pm

    A very bad look for Key indeed.
    Caught on camera lying to the nation just to cover his lust for more luxury.

    Well done TVNZ’s Jessica Mutch.

  4. Zetetic 4
    17 February 2011 at 7:39 pm

    this cuts deep into the trust he’s carefully built with Brand Key. Now when he goes to say ‘trust me, selling assets will be sweet’ jokers will say ‘yeah right, what was the one you told us about the Beamers?’

  5. Eddie 5
    17 February 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Interesting that Mutch says the info that proves Key is a liar was just to hand. I don’t believe that. I reckon she already knew but didn’t mention it to Key when she got him to re-affirm his lie today.

    That way, she got to spring this on the Nats without giving them time to prepare or spike her scoop.

    By claiming to have just got the info, she can say she didn’t set Key up for an ambush.

    Clever girl.

    • Anne 5.1
      17 February 2011 at 7:54 pm

      If you are right Eddie then Jessica Mutch goes up in my estimation. I admit that in the past to assuming she was just another Tory journalist hack – like Kevin Taylor.

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:06 pm

        Thing about Tories – decisions are made on self interest. Mutch’s stock as a journalist has just taken a nice bump up in the media world – and not just in local/NZ circles.

        Just watch how fast Key’s backers will dump him if his personal popularity slumps during the year.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1
          17 February 2011 at 8:21 pm

          As long as he’s more popular than Goff, they’ll keep him. They have no credible alternative after all, and any change of leadership prior to the election (for other than exceptional reasons such as health etc) will look desperate.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2011 at 10:16 pm

            But then there’s the greed of the tory – it’s not in their nature to say “oh well, he’s doing better than Goff, I’ll make do with that“.

            As soon as one of them senses weakness in Key they’ll pounce for the top job. English has the burden of screwing it up before, but Brownlee might try it and weaken the party enough for someone second-tier to go for it. Looking at the spread of current duties Power stands out as having many strings to his bow. Maybe Wilkinson.

  6. Richard 6
    17 February 2011 at 7:56 pm

    It’s always fun to see the “media” literally grasping at straws to discredit the government which is NZ’s only hope to get out of the current economic crisis.

    If this is the best you people have, November couldn’t come sooner.

    The New Zealand people are wise enough to see right through the smokescreens you all seem to be so fond of, just look at the polls.

    • Pascal's bookie 6.1
      17 February 2011 at 8:04 pm

      I’m not sure that watching the media literally grasping at straws would be all that much fun to be honest.

      Though fun is of course subjective, and some people get excited about the weirdest shit.

      Tories for example, are quite well known for this.

      Try me though, do you have footage of this straw grasping that was literally going on?

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      17 February 2011 at 8:08 pm

      The New Zealand people are wise enough to see right through the smokescreens you all seem to be so fond of, just look at the polls.

      Interestingly, I think you’re right, NZ’ers are starting to see past the PR smoke and mirrors screen.

    • Marty G 6.3
      17 February 2011 at 8:09 pm

      so, you’re saying you don’t have a problem with John Key lying to you? Or you think the ends justify the means because he gives you big tax cuts?

    • Eddie 6.4
      17 February 2011 at 8:17 pm

      what’s up with putting ‘media’ in scare quotes “richard”? are you trying to imply there’s really no such thing as the media?

      you don’t know what ‘literally’ means. the word you want is ‘figuratively’. this song might help with the worthsmithery http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1943669

  7. Richard 7
    17 February 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Interesting, i thought everyone got tax cuts?

    Tax cuts are the most reliable way to stimulate the economy; I don’t understand what they are so unpopular among you lot.

    Maybe keeping the economy in shambles is part of your strategy to get re-elected?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      17 February 2011 at 8:14 pm

      Tax cuts are the most reliable way to stimulate the economy (1); I don’t understand what they are so unpopular among you lot. (2)

      1) Liar.
      2) Liar.

      • Deadly_NZ 7.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 11:04 am

        No Tax cuts will stimulate the recovery BUT they have to go to the people that will spend it. Not put it in to a foreign bank account.

        They were Unpopular with most because they went to the WRONG people.

    • Eddie 7.2
      17 February 2011 at 8:28 pm

      NZIER says that 60% of households got no net tax cut thanks to increased GST and other government charges. Meanwhile, Key walks away with at least $23,000 a year, very little of which will be clawed back by the GST hike.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4407809/Higher-GST-prices-eat-tax-cut-gains-for-most – Marty did the graphs of net income change somewhere

      Now, aren’t you the superior guy who we should all respect because you’re self-evidentially better than those of us who aren’t as wealthy as you?

      And, if so, how come you didn’t know that about the tax switch?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.3
      17 February 2011 at 8:34 pm

      Tax cuts are the most reliable way to stimulate the economy;

      Tax cuts have never stimulated the economy before. This has been shown time and time again and, at the end of the day, we do need to pay for the government services that we need and use. Cutting taxes and running a deficit, as this psychopathic government is doing, is just putting the cost of those services onto the next generations.

      • Colonial Viper 7.3.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:53 pm

        Government should have launched a raft of new projects requiring new workers to be taken on. Building, renovating, public transport (NZ built trains anyone), renewable energy,…

        In terms of what is needed for a stimulus package creating jobs and laying down new productive infrastructure, China and Australia “get it”.

        Key and English, bah.

    • Marty G 7.4
      17 February 2011 at 8:48 pm

      yeah because after nearly three years of the biggest string of tax cuts in nz history, starting with the corporate rate reduction to 30% under Labour, the adjective that springs to mind when thinking of the kiwi economy is ‘stimulated’, eh?

      and, apart from that empirical evidence, the big time economists don’t agree with you on the relative efficacy of tax cuts either. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate_Budget_Committee_11_19_08.pdf

    • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 7.5
      17 February 2011 at 9:19 pm

      Tax cuts are the most reliable way to stimulate the economy

      So why haven’t they worked? It looks like we’re heading for a double-dip recession, the only country in the OECD to manage this thanks to National’s utterly inept economic management. If tax cuts were really this magic universal panacea you Righties claim, then NZ’s growth would be rocketing ahead.

      And let’s face it – one recession during a parliamentary term looks careless, but two recessions during a single term is starting to look like plain old incompetence.

      • neoleftie 7.5.1
        19 February 2011 at 6:17 am

        At a macro level NZ is basically a ‘sea in a little boat’ pretty much dictated too by the fluctuation or events as faced by the larger world economies. JK too give him credit did exactly the prescribe and orthodoxically approach and that was try and stabalise the money supply and also simulate the economy by pumping in money from somewhere. NZ had no ready cash reserves or anyway too generate more. tax cuts and ‘externally pumped in’ money due to the severity of the recession was not even neutrally effective on the economy. Due to National policy they cant raise national debt too high so not more borrowed money, the only other option once again to ‘cash up’ assets and hope we can ride out the ‘double dip’ storm. Forecast looks better for late 2011 onwards.

    • Vicky32 7.6
      19 February 2011 at 1:58 am

      “Interesting, i thought everyone got tax cuts?”
      Well, interestingly enough, you’re wrong. All benefits are taxed, and no beneficiary got a tax cut.
      Deb

  8. Richard 8
    17 February 2011 at 8:16 pm

    I note you didn’t object to the last sentence.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      17 February 2011 at 8:19 pm

      Maybe keeping the economy in shambles is part of your strategy to get re-elected?

      Are you saying that the economy is in a shambles? I have to agree.

      Because 2 1/4 years into their term of office, that shambles belongs to none other than Bill and John.

    • Marty G 8.2
      17 February 2011 at 8:32 pm

      richard. please use the reply button when you’re replying to a specific comment so that people can follow the conversation.

    • fraser 8.3
      18 February 2011 at 8:10 am

      you mean this one? – “Maybe keeping the economy in shambles is part of your strategy to get re-elected?”

      whos running the joint sunshine?

      unless your claiming that a bunch of bloggers are somehow running the NZ govt.
      Which you might be, who knows?

      • Akldnut 8.3.1
        18 February 2011 at 6:58 pm

        The bloggers would probably do a better job – there would be a public forum and laws discussed before they were changed and policy made with everyone in mind, not just the wealthy few.

      • neoleftie 8.3.2
        19 February 2011 at 6:38 am

        if world event have shown in the past few week, a connected mass can be critical to changing or modifying events. Surely this is a forum to discuss, promote and be connected to create a positive movement soas to get labour reelected.

  9. PC Brigadier 9
    17 February 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Sometimes he lets the “truth” slip out…
    http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2011/02/poor-choices-or-just-poor/

  10. Rosy 10
    17 February 2011 at 8:23 pm

    “… I’m not an expert in Crown cars but they are three years old,” she said.
    …. out of touch, much? minister of conservation

    • Marty G 10.1
      17 February 2011 at 8:29 pm

      yeah, shocker, eh?

      how long before the Nats ban themselves from talking to the media, a la the Maori Party?

    • the sprout 10.2
      17 February 2011 at 8:30 pm

      interesting that Wilkinson was the one put in front of the cameras to draw the fire, then again she’s so thick she probably saw it as a good opportunity for some coverage

      • Marty G 10.2.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:37 pm

        The maths is just good:

        20+ ministers – thick as shit, arrogant tory ministers at that – for the media to question

        1 bad answer makes a story

        So far English, Wilkinson and Key have all stuffed up. Key by far the worst because the other two were honest about being pricks. Key tried to hide it and failed.

      • ianmac 10.2.2
        18 February 2011 at 9:17 am

        Though Wilkinson did not front up for the Lake Ellesmere fiasco. (about the extension to lakeside grazing.)

  11. Richard 11
    17 February 2011 at 8:30 pm

    She is correct if she is saying that a vehicle which is three years old is nowhere near as environmentally efficient as a brand new vehicle.

    If business leaders are entitled to brand new cars every year i see no problem with the head of our government having the same entitlement.

    • the sprout 11.1
      17 February 2011 at 8:32 pm

      Late model BMW 7 series, immaculately maintained and driven very carefully – very little wear on an engine like that in 3 years.

      As for your entitlement line, that’s too laughable to even bother with 😆

      How are those ‘literal’ straws going Ricky, are they ‘literally’ running out yet? The shit’s ‘literally’ hitting the fan in Natspin Central Command right now isn’t it Ricky. Nervous?

      • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:37 pm

        that’s too laughable to even bother with

        I literally hope the Nats run with that line themselves.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.2
      17 February 2011 at 8:39 pm

      Production of a new car is far more environmentally damaging than running a newish car for a few more years.

      • Lanthanide 11.2.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:44 pm

        It’s bizarre isn’t it?

        We’re not talking about 15 year old car vs brand new car here. We’re talking about 3 year old luxury top-end car vs brand new luxury top-end car (from the same manufacturer).

        Unless there was a drastic engine re-design, or different fuel (CNG, diesel, electric) in use, expecting a 3 year old luxury car to somehow be “nowhere near as environmentally efficient as a brand new vehicle” just boggles the mind.

        At this point I’m writing “Richard” off as a no-nothing dreamer without a foot in reality.

        • Marty G 11.2.1.1
          17 February 2011 at 8:53 pm

          interestingly, the new model is quite a bit more fuel efficient, I guess they’ve replaced steel with lighter metal or carbon-fibre because its the same engine, more powerful in fact. But scarcely worth getting rid of perfectly serviceable cars for when you consider all the energy you’re demanding to have the new car made… got an email of a presser DIA put out with the details but it doesn’t appear to be online.

          • Lanthanide 11.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2011 at 9:00 pm

            How much more efficient? More than 1L/100km? That would be a nice saving.

            Doesn’t help Richard though, because he was just going on the age of the cars for his explanation.

            • Marty G 11.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2011 at 9:04 pm

              from 8.2l/100km to 5.8l/100km from memory.

              Ironically, that makes this decision more sensible the higher the petrol price goes 🙂

              although, checking out the BMW site now I don’t see a series 7 engine with that kind of efficiency except the hybrid and they’re not hybrids, they’re six-cylinder straights

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 February 2011 at 9:09 pm

                At $2/L, and assuming the new cars cost $100K each (after discounts and sale of the old ones).

                The new BMWs would break even from petrol costs compared to the old ones, after the new ones had travelled 2.08 million kilometres.

                Now I like my BMWs but even I don’t think they will last that long 😎

        • logie97 11.2.1.2
          17 February 2011 at 9:57 pm

          “At this point I’m writing “Richard” off as a no-nothing dreamer without a foot in reality.”

          … at least one foot in his mouth though.

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.2
        17 February 2011 at 8:45 pm

        Exactly DTB. Its not unusual for a tonne of new steel to have generated 1.0 tonne to 1.4 tonne of CO2 in its manufacture.

        And there is more than one tonne of new steel in a 7-series Beemer.

        Wow Richard is really reaching now, he might be grabbing the moon by midnight.

    • Rosy 11.3
      17 February 2011 at 8:41 pm

      Richard that would be completely wrong. I remember Jeanette Fitzsimmons refusing to upgrade her decade old Honda because if it was well maintained and driven carefully it was less damaging to the environment than buying a new Prius.

    • Deadly_NZ 11.4
      18 February 2011 at 11:22 am

      And probably not done much more than 20000 k’s so will still be pretty much brand new. would have lasted another few years easy.

  12. Pascal's bookie 12
    17 February 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Leave Key alooooooone.

    He was just making a lifestyle choice. Just like that nice Mr Dipton.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    17 February 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Hilarious!

    The Granny Herald has on its web front page an article where Key states that he knew nothing about the BMW’s until last week, as well as an article where Brownlee had to backtrack and say that indeed, National had known much earlier about the new BMW’s!

    The NATs are already getting speed wobbles and its only February!

  14. Paul Edington 14
    17 February 2011 at 9:07 pm

    I have an idea of a pr/ billboard campaign that may work to destroy the myth of JK – man of the people. But who do I contact?

  15. Rex Widerstrom 15
    17 February 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Pffft, typical beat up. All forward thinking governments in stable, prosperous countries supply their Ministers with the latest vehicles. I mean take err… ummm… ah yes, Liberia, for instance.

    Us, an unstable banana republic? You’ve got us mistaken for umm… some other greedy dictatorship. But not Ghana, either and definitely not Uganda, got that?.

    Because we’re nothing like them.

    These are just, like totally unrelated incidents of power crazed tinpot leaders going crazy and indulging their taste for luxury while their people starve.

    Say, does anyone know Hosni’s new number? I’ve got a fleet deal he might be interested in…

  16. kultur 16
    17 February 2011 at 9:56 pm

    When will politicians realise that people generally arent stupid – they may be punchdrunk from body blows dealt via economic mismanagement – but they dont stay stunned forever.

    Neither Clark nor Key should have ever sanctioned buying expensive to buy and run, kraut rubbish – we should have gone transtasman and had fords or holdens and told the pollies if they didnt like riding normal wheelbase like the rest of us – then buy a bloody long wheelbase pushbike and live like other people for a change. Who the hell do they all think they are?

    Cars – for gods bloody sake – cars – at a huge cost – and thats what the sum total of Keys dopy mismanagement and Clarks “arrogant asleep at the wheel” approaches have brought us to. All so fat arses of overweight or overpaid pollies can rest easy – and hollywoods Tsars can cruise around at our expense creaming more rape and pillage concessions from our stupid current prime minister. Makes me sick.

    Guys and Girls – Chris Carter got facials and Back rubs – Someone else got rubs and jollies elsewhere courtesy of hotel videos – Key paid out huge sums to his rich mates via SCF and the tax cuts – milked pike river grief for all it was worth – made an earthquake a personal crusade for his personal “brand” and at the end of it all – the rest of us were left with fuck all except a vague feeling we might just have been played for the fools we really are.

    You get the government you deserve. Maybe we should all start waking up to it.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.1
      17 February 2011 at 11:10 pm

      IIRC, the initial BMWs were actually cheaper than the Fords/Holdens and also far more fuel efficient and better suited to purpose.

      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1
        17 February 2011 at 11:14 pm

        Given that LTD’s and Statesmen were ~$70-80K cars at retail (and not worth it if you asked me because mechanically they were pretty similar to the bottom rungs of the family) colour me doubtful that those 7 series were cheaper.

        • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1
          17 February 2011 at 11:22 pm

          Could have been cheaper over total life with the deal that the previous government got – they really are that much more fuel efficient and they’re diesel as well.

  17. bobo 17
    17 February 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Either John Keys a liar or his Chauffeur knows more than he does about running a government , take your pick..

  18. kultur 18
    17 February 2011 at 10:07 pm

    And lets never ever forget that dear little girl from Mcgehan close that Key picked up in a BMW to take to Waitangi.

    “If blood be the price of your cursed wealth (and cynical populist fucking bullshit) – good god we have brought it dear…”

    When in gods good name are we all going to wake up to this nonsense. The smirking well paid and cossetted media assholes smarm their way through their coverage of current affairs and sort of give us all the impression that “why cant we see things from their lofty perspective”.

    I often think when watching Breakfast on ONE … “when the fuck did you ever find yourself in a position of experiencing anything of the ilk of the rest of the great unwashed out there in NZ…”

    On salaries of over $100,000 – how can you identify or empathise or even comprehend what it is like for families out there? Judy Bailey – called the “mother of the nation” retired after getting $800,000 a year – a figure she said she “earned” …. for being a mediocre reasonable looking parrot using a teleprompter?? Hey “mum” where’s my share of the moolah.

    This country is in crisis …. it really is – and Key and his flunkies buy nice new cars.

    Fuck you Mr Key – and the fucking horse you and all your sycophants rode in on.

    Election day – we all have a chance to give you the finger once and for all …

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      17 February 2011 at 10:19 pm

      Fuck you Mr Key – and the fucking finely engineered smooth as silk eight cylinder German made horse you and all your sycophants rode in on.

      FIFY

  19. liar liar pants on fire 19
    17 February 2011 at 10:10 pm

    Mr Key has been well documented lying…

    Remember TranzRail?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrPgK3bf9_4&

    Remember Lord Ashcroft?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFme4VZhz0k

    Lying lying eyes.

  20. Richard 20
    17 February 2011 at 10:24 pm

    You people aren’t worth my time; there is no point arguing with a bunch of self confessed Marxists.

    I have confidence in the NZ people; as evidenced by the last election they are wise enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.

    Good luck this November, you will need it.

  21. Richard 21
    17 February 2011 at 10:35 pm

    My shareholders dictate my salary and they are more than happy with the current rate.

    Luckily it’s not up to communist propoganda machines such as yourself (Marty).

    • Tigger 21.1
      17 February 2011 at 10:55 pm

      Oh Richard, you’re a wage slave? Welcome to the working class comrade!

    • Colonial Viper 21.2
      18 February 2011 at 12:17 pm

      My shareholders dictate my salary and they are more than happy with the current rate.

      Lets just read the sentence you wrote really really carefully and see who has been naively suckered into believing that they are a free man with free choices outside the capitalist rule book lol

  22. Richard 22
    17 February 2011 at 10:39 pm

    What pains me more than anything is the fact that you lot have brainwashed my only daughter into believing your propoganda. She is a staunch Labour party supporter.

    My hatred of all of you isn’t only political, its personal.

    • calltoaccount 22.1
      17 February 2011 at 10:45 pm

      Is this an answer to this from Marty G…
      “Good luck coming up with some views that aren’t child’s play to rebut”

      Honestly, all of your posts sound like a bad job application for Kevin Taylor’s soon to be vacant position!

    • Marty G 22.2
      17 February 2011 at 10:45 pm

      sounds like a smart kid.

      hope she didn’t tell you the location of the secret re-education camps where half the country’s population has been brainwashed by us evil marxists.

    • Carol 22.3
      17 February 2011 at 10:46 pm

      So you don’t have any faith in your daughter’s critical judgement?

    • Colonial Viper 22.4
      17 February 2011 at 10:47 pm

      And here I thought you were into free individual choice.

    • kriswgtn 22.5
      18 February 2011 at 6:49 am

      hate you too like i hate all tories
      miss you already
      fuck off and own it bitch

      [lprent: couching it in verse makes no frigging difference. ‘pwning’ type statements are not allowed because they are just stupid – this is an agree to disagree forum. Do it again and you will earn a holiday. ]

    • mickysavage 22.6
      18 February 2011 at 7:30 am

      It could be worse Richard. She could support ACT.

    • Bored 22.7
      18 February 2011 at 7:43 am

      Oh dear Richard, I must have done something right as my three dont vote National. My brother does, but I dont take that so hard as they obviously brainwashed him. I have not quite got to hatred yet, I attempt to understand right wing tendencies and put them down to chiildish selfishness which righties perhaps might grow out of.

      Maybe you too might have a Damascene moment, like Paul the tax collector.

  23. Anthony C 23
    17 February 2011 at 10:45 pm

    The branding isn’t matching the ‘consumer’ experience.

    It’s the same reason why Telecom had to spend $500 million on advertising just so people wouldn’t hate them so much.

    It all crumbles eventually. I wonder if the last week or two is where that happens for National?

  24. Richard 24
    17 February 2011 at 10:54 pm

    She is too young to understand the blatant hypocrisy that defines your position(s).

    I do support her choices and decisions the only exception being the one unfortunate incident which resulted in her innocent young mind falling prey to the continual distortion of facts delivered by the mainstream media.

    Do any of you have any self respect?

    CV: My job offer still stands, the lawns need mowing while we are overseas, i will pay you more than the minimum wage, why don’t you stand up for your “principles” instead of hiding behind the “there is no work available” mantra?

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      17 February 2011 at 10:59 pm

      CV: My job offer still stands, the lawns need mowing while we are overseas, i will pay you more than the minimum wage, why don’t you stand up for your principles instead of hiding behind the “there is no work available” mantra?

      I dunno, my honey looks after me pretty well. Although my weekly allowance from her family wouldn’t keep the Hotchins happy, I have to admit.

      But thanks, tell you what, why don’t you send your CV (lol) in to The Standard, they might pass it on to me and I’ll see if you’re good enough to bother working for*.

      *I’ve found from experience that most workers only put up with pricks for managers because they need the wage, and since I don’t need the wage I don’t have to. Call it a lifestyle choice 🙂

    • the sprout 24.2
      17 February 2011 at 11:00 pm

      Ricky now you’re just resorting to derailing as a last desperate attempt to reduce the damage caused by Key’s blatant lying.
      Maybe you should see a professional about your personal problems, this isn’t really the forum for whining about how your family doesn’t share your political opinions.

  25. Richard 25
    17 February 2011 at 10:55 pm

    sprout: this is where your comments start getting deleted for threadjacking. if you persist you will go to the spam queue

  26. NX 26
    17 February 2011 at 10:58 pm

    From”
    http://johnkey.co.nz//archives/1139-Labours-claims-on-VIP-fleet-totally-wrong.html

    Labour’s claims on VIP fleet totally wrong
    Labour has tonight claimed the Prime Minister signed off on the Ministerial VIP limo replacement budget, and therefore knew about it. That claim is wrong.

    From a spokesman, a response follows:

    “Labour’s claim is totally wrong. Mr Mallard is trying to create mischief, and as a former senior Minister he should know better. The Prime Minister, as the Vote Minister Responsible for Ministerial Services, does not have responsibility for signing off on VIP Transport’s capital budget. He is responsible for, and signed off on, VIP Transport’s operating budget for the year, which was $7.9 million, essentially the same as that budgeted for 2009-10. (for details see Budget appropriations document B.5A Vol. 5, page 79.)

    “While the Minister of Internal Affairs has overall responsibility for the Department’s capital budget, the chief executive has delegated authority to approve projects up to $15 million whole-of-life cost. We are advised by the Department that the purchase of the new VIP fleet was underneath that threshold and therefore was approved by the chief executive.

    “On the issue of cost, while we cannot go into detail of specific pricing, DIA had advised that the cost savings from a three-year replacement versus a five-year replacement, are considerable.

    “Based on a fleet of 35 cars, if the existing fleet is kept for five years, the total cost of ownership over the five years would be $4,697,175. If we keep the cycle of replacing every 3 years, the total cost over five years of the existing fleet held for three years plus two years of the new fleet, would be $2,612,365. So, the savings over five years would be $2,084,810 .”

    “In addition a select committee report made public last year made reference to VIP services replacement vehicles. This was not seen by the Prime Minister. We would note that there are potentially hundreds of select committee reports tabled every year.

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      17 February 2011 at 11:00 pm

      Hey mate, does that mean that John Key didn’t help test drive one of the new models last year, as was claimed on TVNZ?

    • calltoaccount 26.2
      17 February 2011 at 11:02 pm

      According to the reporter, John Key’s bottom was checking the new cars for comfort last April.

      Can’t wait to get those particular details NK. Please post when you dig them up!

    • Marty G 26.3
      17 February 2011 at 11:34 pm

      one moment it’s ‘not a good look’ and Key is angry at DIA. Next it’s an awesome decision and DIA had no need to inform him.

      one minute, Key didn’t know about the limos until just now. Next minute we learn he was lying.

      And that lie over-writes what is actually a small substantive issue – because now it’s about trust.

      • Tigger 26.3.1
        18 February 2011 at 8:27 am

        Can’t find mention of the test drive in papers today, they seem to be running the ‘should have known’ line rather than the more damning ‘he drove in one of the cars ffs!’.

        • Marty G 26.3.1.1
          18 February 2011 at 8:33 am

          yeah, the herald mentions mutch’s article but specifically fails to mention that key rode in one of the cars in April last year. don’t worry, it won’t die just because granny doesn’t want to talk about it.

          key will be asked to explain the discrepancy between his words and reality today, i’m sure.

          • Colonial Viper 26.3.1.1.1
            18 February 2011 at 8:40 am

            Also in this case I think there will be an element of Granny being pissed off that someone else got the killer scoop. Wow…a return to competition between the media branches for the better story – who would’ve thought.

  27. Richard 27
    17 February 2011 at 11:01 pm

    sprout: comment deleted. threadjacking is not an adequate substitute for rebuttal

  28. Richard 28
    17 February 2011 at 11:09 pm

    sprout: comment deleted. threadjacking is not an adequate substitute for rebuttal. final warning

    [lprent: from the context of the replies, this looks like a pwned argument that is commonly used by the argumentally inadequate. He is lucky that sprout got to it before I did. ]

    • Lanthanide 28.1
      17 February 2011 at 11:15 pm

      National won the election by:
      1. Promising to keep interest-free student loans
      2. Promising tax cuts “north of $50 a week” for those on the average wage (which he hasn’t delivered, btw)
      3. Promising to cut back office jobs but otherwise not fire anyone on the front line (which he’s broken)
      4. Promising not to sell state assets in his first term
      5. Promising not to cut WFF entitlements
      6. Promising ultra fast broadband (which so far has not been delivered and is being shown up as the puff policy it always was)

      If, by now saying they want to sell state assets in their 2nd term, you are somehow saying that Key is “focussing on the demands of the people who put him in office” you’re delusional.

      • g_man 28.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 7:41 am

        No, not delusional. It’s called English Comprehension 101.

        National promised not to sell state assets in their first term. They haven’t. It was debated quite clearly at the time that this meant they would obviously consider it in their second term. It’s now up to the voters to either decide this is what they want, and vote National back in, or decide no they don’t want it, in which case case vote Labour.

        Simple.

        • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 28.1.1.1
          18 February 2011 at 8:07 am

          Well, aside from selling the Whirinaki power station, of course.

          Let’s see … it’s a state asset – tick. It’s for sale – tick. The sale was initiated by the National government, in this case Gerry Brownlee – tick.

          It’s not the fact that you Righties are disingenuous lying scumbags that gets me, it’s the fact that you’re too stupid to use Google.

          • g_man 28.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2011 at 1:18 pm

            I wouldn’t describe myself as a rightie or a leftie – I actually vote on the issues, rather than a blind ideology.

            Anyway, Whirinaki. That would be the emergency generator of last resort, opened in 2004, which was due to be transferred to Meridian Energy in October 2010 – but Meridian told the Government they didn’t want it. So, you’re saying the Government should just blindly hold on to a worthless asset …

            • lprent 28.1.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2011 at 2:37 pm

              Read your own comment.

              Of course a commercial or semi commercial power generation company doesn’t want to hold the emergency generator for the country. They have to hold it’s non profit generating asset. it is unlikely to ever contribute to their bottom line

              The organization that needs to hold it is that which is responsible for the overall operation of our local economy. In particular in the event of civil disasters. That is the government.

              It was a foolish abrogation of responsibily for the government to try to push it off to Meridian. To use that as an excuse to drop an emergency generator is the issue you should be looking at.

              But it appears you aren’t really interested in issues at all?

        • Marty G 28.1.1.2
          18 February 2011 at 8:40 am

          whirinaki. state houses sold but not replaced. the asset swap/special dividend with genesis and meridian. oh yes, privatisation is happening right now.

    • Maynard J 28.2
      17 February 2011 at 11:25 pm

      Richard, your arguments were comprehensively dismantled, and then you resorted to claiming the support of a silent majority of New Zealanders.

      You also forget that a sizeable percentage of New Zealanders, say 30%, are Labour supporters, and dismiss them as brainwashed – as if one third of the population can’t think for themselves, and lack the faculties of critical judgement.

      I don’t think there’s any form of victory, or any decent point whatsoever, that you can claim to have made here.

      Your comments are an embarrassment to intelligent right-wingers. Yes, I believe that many among them are intelligent, as opposed to being brain-washed. I even have the ability to respectfully disagree with them. For you I have nothing but contempt.

      • Lanthanide 28.2.1
        17 February 2011 at 11:46 pm

        Note that the vote turnout was only about 80% or so in 2008. So there’s a further 20% who didn’t vote for anyone.

        So 20% + 30% of 80% + Green’s 8% party vote gives us totally 52% of eligible voters didn’t vote for National.

  29. Richard 29
    17 February 2011 at 11:36 pm

    “Richard, your arguments were comprehensively dismantled, and then you resorted to claiming the support of a silent majority of New Zealanders. ”

    Example? It’s well established that National did not sign the contract for the BMW’s so i cannot see how this outcry is anything but an own goal?

    The fact that Key denied knowledge of the incoming BMW’s and that he was aware last year is undeniable. It is however completely comprehensible and believable that he was not updated on the status of the said BMW’s until it was too late. In the intial phase he could have written it off as something that he would deal with “when the time comes”. The DIA’s (or a Labour mole) failure to keep him updated on the status of the contract is something which needs to be taken into consideration.

    “You also forget that a sizeable percentage of New Zealanders, say 30%, are Labour supporters, and dismiss them as brainwashed – as if one third of the population can’t think for themselves, and lack the faculties of critical judgement.”

    Please point to where i claimed that Labour party supporters are brainwashed? I personally believe that the bulk of your support comes from people who are following family tradition (from back when the Labour party could be considered honorable and true to their beliefs).

    “I don’t think there’s any form of victory, or any decent point whatsoever, that you can claim to have made here.”

    I haven’t claimed to make any point other than that this whole topic is mere dog whistling – a point i stand by.

    “Your comments are an embarrassment to intelligent right-wingers. Yes, I believe that many among them are intelligent, as opposed to being brain-washed. I even have the ability to respectfully disagree with them. For you I have nothing but contempt”

    I consider myself a centralist, its more that NZ politics is so far to the left that a centralist is considered right wing. I am a supporter of social welfare and understand that more often than not it is needed by people who geniunely need it. Where we strongly disagree is the fact that i believe the system is being rorted by people who do not need it hence severely disadvantaging those who do.

    • Colonial Viper 29.1
      17 February 2011 at 11:44 pm

      waste of screen space

    • Lanthanide 29.2
      17 February 2011 at 11:47 pm

      “Please point to where i claimed that Labour party supporters are brainwashed?”

      Right here:

      “What pains me more than anything is the fact that you lot have brainwashed my only daughter into believing your propoganda. She is a staunch Labour party supporter.”

      I’m done.

      Don’t feed the troll.

    • Carol 29.3
      18 February 2011 at 8:18 am

      Having had a dad who was a Nat voter and staunch Muldoonist, I kind of empathised with the daughter. I argued with my dad about politics back in my teens, and now am in my early 60s and still a left voter. And in the intervening years I’ve been places, talked to many people in various walks of life, worked, gained some degrees in social sciences, and still don’t agree with right wing logic.

      My dad was a smart professional man, who also did many good things for others, and would support those he thought were in need. He was very good with maths, but had little understanding of people and social processes. He did not understand how the system (especially under the kind of government run by right wingers) was skewed towards benefitting certain classes (mostly white middleclass men back then).

      My dad might have thought I had been brain-washed, but I think he gave me more credit for coming to my own conclusions. He had some respect for my ability to reason. To me I was just using my own judgement to come to conslusions based on the evidence in front of me.

  30. Richard 30
    17 February 2011 at 11:49 pm

    Contextual dishonesty is your forte? OK, in that case i can understand how you can reach that conclusion.

    • BLiP 30.1
      18 February 2011 at 12:49 am

      Whereas John Key just prefers flat out, in your face dishonesty. Isn’t it great the media is finally catching on. Speaking of which, big ups to that Patrick Gower chappie from TV3, he did as good job as well as Jessica Mutch, IMNSHO. Patrick, of course, was with the New Zealand Fox News Herald but did such a sterling job when Armstrong was away, he had to go. Glad TV3 picked him up.

      • pollywog 30.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 8:12 am

        choice to see, in the spirit of fairness, that Gower balances out the obviously pro Key leanings of Dunkin’ Donut Garner.

        i remember saying early on that Key’s not a good liar. One pretty much just has to read his face and body language then go looking for the facts after he tries one on and pull him up on it.

  31. higherstandard 31
    18 February 2011 at 8:17 am

    What is it about PMs, cars and irrelevant drivel that bloggers and the public get wound up about ?

    • stever 31.1
      18 February 2011 at 8:42 am

      Quire reasonably, people use what people *do* rather than what they *say* in order to judge them.

  32. Speaking Sense to Unions 32
    18 February 2011 at 9:42 am

    I take it you were all against Labour buying the BMWs in the first place.

    • lprent 32.1
      18 February 2011 at 9:55 am

      I suggest you read the comments and posts about excessive travel costs, including these vehicles, that have been written over the last two or three years. That is the reason that Phil Goff who is entitled to use them, has stated that he doesn’t use them any more than he absolutely has to (google it) – using taxis instead.

      Have you been hiding under a rock for some years now?

      • Speaking Sense to Unions 32.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 9:57 am

        I’ll take that as yes you opposed Labour’s purchase of these cars.

        Has Goff said he’ll do away with ministerial cars?

        I’m not surprised Key didn’t know, Labour forgot all about it as well – and they signed the contract.

        • lprent 32.1.1.1
          18 February 2011 at 10:13 am

          I would strongly suggest that you do not attempt to put words into anyone elses mouth. It is a behavior that, when I moderate, I will immediately give people a educational ban to prevent flamewars. See the policy

          • Speaking Sense to Unions 32.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2011 at 10:17 am

            fair enough, I suppose I don’t know if you opposed Labour’s purchase or not.

            out of interest, anyone know if David Parker, Chris Hipkins or Grant Robertson knew last year of this roll-over of the BMWs?

            • Speaking Sense to Unions 32.1.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2011 at 10:46 am

              no takers?

              I suppose interpreting the silence would be considered putting words in peoples mounths so I’ll refrain.

              [lprent: Back from my wee nap. I see that you’re getting the idea. Most of the time it simply means that people can’t be bothered engaging. ]

            • Bright Red 32.1.1.1.1.2
              18 February 2011 at 11:33 am

              I can’t imagine how it would matter either way.

              • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                18 February 2011 at 11:37 am

                Well just supposing a certain committee chaired by Labour signed off on this just last year – would that matter?

                • ianmac …
                  18 February 2011 at 11:49 am

                  A good PM would say the buck stops here. Blame the Opposition? Nah.
                  The essential thing is that the PM is responsible for spending millions of dollars on fancy cars while demanding that the taxpayers, the Public Service and the Beneficiaries tighten their belts, because we are bad overspending people!
                  That is a simple idea and it will stick.

                  • higherstandard …
                    18 February 2011 at 11:57 am

                    “A good PM would say the buck stops here”

                    We have never had a PM who has taken responsibility for such matters – to quote melchy they slip and slide like slippy slidey things.

                  • Mac1 …
                    18 February 2011 at 11:58 am

                    I read/scanned last night all the comments, 43 pages of them, in the Herald’s comments on John Key’s blaming of beneficiaries. That point was made on countless occasions. How dare John Key lecture the poor who have to manage on little about poor choices when he swans about in Beemers with vibrators in the seats!

                    As you say, ianmac, a simple idea but most of the good ideas are. It certainly will stick. It has- in my craw.

                • Bright Red …
                  18 February 2011 at 11:54 am

                  select committees don’t set the Budget, the government does. Nor can select committees edit a Budget Vote that comes before them because that would undermine the role of the government.

                  The role of select committees in the budget process is purely is to debate the contents and question the minister. They do not and cannot edit Votes. They just write a short report on what is in the Vote and the questions they asked the minister. They are not allowed to do anything more or refuse to report on a Vote.

                  • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                    18 February 2011 at 12:00 pm

                    “The role of select committees in the budget process is purely is to debate the contents and question the minister.”

                    indeed. The Labour chair and the other MPs did not raise any concerns – because they agreed with it. It’s not surprising, Labour set up this deal with the BMWs in the first place, they were hardly going to turn round and say it was all wrong.

                    Now that was back in June last year. Labour had plenty of time to raise concerns. But didn’t.

                    • lprent …
                      18 February 2011 at 12:14 pm

                      I suspect that you’re deliberately ignoring the point of the post.

                      The Minister who is responsible for this decision appears to have deliberately lied about his knowledge of this decision.

                      No amount of vile squirming on your part is going to get around that unpalatable fact. Perhaps you’d care to discuss that point? It is after all the actual point of the post.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      18 February 2011 at 12:36 pm

                      All Key needed to do was say not everthing the Clark Govt did was wrong.

                      Not sure what Labour’s position is now. Last year they supported their own contract. Been a bit quiet since.

                    • Bright Red …
                      18 February 2011 at 12:54 pm

                      they didn’t agree to it any more than the Labour members on the committee that saw Vote Revenue agreed to the tax swindle when it was reported by their committee.

                      I’m afraid you don’t understand the Budget process.

                      captcha: studying – SSTU needs to do some

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      18 February 2011 at 12:55 pm

                      You seem to think the contract required new cars after three years.. It didn’t, so one can easily think the contract was good, but this purchase stupid.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      18 February 2011 at 1:08 pm

                      The Labour-chaired committee had before them “replacement” of VIP vehicles.

                      So, they knew all about their own contract, knew that it entailed this 3 year provision for replacement and were so violently opposed to it all they – did and said nothing.

                      It’s a bit like the CERRA, they were all so opposed to it they all voted for it.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 February 2011 at 11:55 am

                  LAB “signed off on this” spending?

                  Did someone just give LAB the power to sign off on Government spending now? Desperation, S.S.

            • lprent 32.1.1.1.1.3
              18 February 2011 at 12:10 pm

              …suppose I don’t know if you opposed Labour’s purchase or not…

              I actually had no opinion on it one way or another. There is a need for the government to maintain a fleet of vehicles. When they shifted from Ford Fairlanes to BMW’s (the contract that you’re talking about) I was mainly interested in that the price was similar to the alternate and that there were significant fuel efficiency gains.

              When the details of the parliamentary spending on travel came out, I was mainly interested in the excessive levels of travel expenses of some MP’s and ministers.

              When this particular matter came up, I’ve been mainly interested in that John Key felt that it was necessary to lie. The actual contract with BMW is quite secondary to that. The question was raised about the expense of the rollover when the government was retrenching everywhere else. John Key, whose direct responsibility it is as a minster, lied through his teeth about it. That is what interests me.

              I haven’t seen a particularly good justification for going for a rollover of the vehicles at 3 years apart from the RWC excuse (which is complete bullshit to explain the extra expense).

              • g_man …
                18 February 2011 at 1:35 pm

                If you are genuinely interested in a justification, I’ll point you to a study carried out by Sungjin Cho of Hanyang University, and John Rust, University of Maryland.

                They studied a “large, successful rental car company that buys new vehicles and rents them to a series of customers who choose long or short term rental contracts. The company earns extraordinarily high rates of return on its rental cars, with average internal rates of return between purchase and sale of approximately 50%.” And the model they use is “to replace old cars with new vehicles after approximately three years of operation”.

                Note that? Three years.

                The 71 page report is here: http://gemini.econ.umd.edu/jrust/research/rental.pdf

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 February 2011 at 2:01 pm

                  lolz do you have any frakking idea what you just put up?

                  In your scenario the “rental car company” is the company providing the car to a long term rental customer, who say at the end of every 3 years, returns the car and picks up another. That customer being the NZ Government.

                  So the rental car company is the one who earns the high rates of return off the tax payer between the purchase of the vehicles (from Head Office in Germany) and temporary provision of the vehicles (to the NZ Govt).

                  And who is this rental car company making all these high “average internal rates of return” off the tax payer? The German firm, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG. :mrgreen:

                  Total self inflicted wound you idiot. Frak you Righties are hopeless.

                • lprent …
                  18 February 2011 at 2:13 pm

                  So you are comparing two completely different business models. Rental car agencies have very little in common with fleet management operations.

                  Perhaps you should go and learn a little more about how even quite small market and operational differences between business require quite different operational strategies. I did. My major on the MBA was in operations.

                  Tell me – are you this thick all of the time? Or does someone pay you to be this way?

                  What I am noting with you at present is a quite distinct diversion troll pattern. Superficial talking points that take about 2 seconds of thought to unravel. Might be good enough to fool a lazy journo – but really doesn’t fly around here.

                  Ummmm… Actually I think that I just described kiwiblog. Should I be charitable and just think that you are mindlessly channeling DPF

                  • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                    18 February 2011 at 2:45 pm

                    Hard to see why you should insult people like that, fleet replacement cycles of around 3 years are very common as it makes economic sense. That’s why Labour put the option in at 3 years. It’s common business practice which the Clark govt followed.

                    Whether or not it makes sense to hold on to the vehicles or replace them in this particular instance at this particular time is hard to judge but as far as I know no Labour MP – until now that is, funny that – has made the case to keep the vehicles past 3 years even though they knew the details of the costs involved. So I’m inclined to think that replacement was the best option.

                    • lprent …
                      18 February 2011 at 3:05 pm

                      It could have something to do with the sheer gall of trying a invalid business based model as justification when it clearly doesn’t relate. Of course I could have been kinder… Normally I probably would have been because it takes time to craft appropiate insults. I usually don’t have time because I moderate during compiles and have little time to actually comment.

                      But I am sitting at home bored with a bad attitude caused by a sore chest due to Lyn and the ambulance people doing CPR on it. I have time to comment rather than moderate. And I don’t suffer people deliberately acting like fools around me without giving them an educative experience. They might carry on doing it.

                      People trolling around here should start praying I get back to work soon. I am much nicer when I merely moderate…. I don’t use the decades of experience in online forums to crucify victims when I moderate. I do if I have time to comment.

                      The MP’s are not responsible for operational budgets. The minister is. Select committees can only review expenditures, they cannot change them. Only the cabinet, the house, or the responsible minister can.

                      Your argument (as has been previously been noted by many) is simply crap. Yet you seem to be intellectually incapable of understanding that. I wonder why?

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      18 February 2011 at 3:18 pm

                      “The MP’s are not responsible for operational budgets. The minister is. Sekect committees can only review expenditures, they cannot change them. Only the cabinet, the house, or the responsible minister can.”

                      my understanding is that Labour MPs have vocal chords that can operate outside the select committee process. They had the time and knowledge to make some case against replacement had they wanted but chose not to.

                      Key has released figures from the DIA showing replacement was the least expensive option. He would of course. If they are wrong then Labour can produce figures – they must know, they made the contract – to disprove that.

                    • wtl …
                      18 February 2011 at 3:57 pm

                      So your argument is that we shouldn’t be pissed off by the Government purchasing new vehicles because the Labour party didn’t object earlier? Really?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 February 2011 at 4:22 pm

                      $7M in Beemers = weekly home help visits for 6000 elderly for a year.

                      Bin the home help but get the Beemers. It would be a Tui ad, but this actually did happen.

                      Edit – it seems oddly amusing that the Righties are so sensitive to being “insulted” when they support these kinds of decisions in the same breath. I guess the elite rich and powerful are a descriminated against minority these days 🙄

                      Edit 2 – S.S’s claims that buying 34 new 7-series BMW’s is the ‘least expensive option’ GUFFAW. What ever world you live in mate its not the same one that NZ’ers on the median income of $28K p.a. live in.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      18 February 2011 at 6:51 pm

                      “So your argument is that we shouldn’t be pissed off by the Government purchasing new vehicles because the Labour party didn’t object earlier? Really?”

                      Given Labour bought them and made no objection to their replacement I’d say blame could be attributed to both parties.

                      I’m inclined however to think Clark made the right decision and Key has at last come to the same conclusion.

                      “”Edit – it seems oddly amusing that the Righties are so sensitive to being “insulted””

                      It seems scarely ironic that so-called liberals can be so vile to people expressing their views in a reasonable and non-insulting manner which happens all too often here.

                    • lprent []
                      18 February 2011 at 8:57 pm

                      Ummm… I suspect you are blinded by your juvenile prejudices. My experience of ‘liberals’ is that they are just as hard nosed as ‘practical’ people – and far less likely to be taken in by bullshitting buffons (like you appear to be)

                      However, I am not a ‘liberal’. I am a reluctant socialist with more of a conservative bent. I come from a long lineof oth managers and unionist. There are elements of both economic liberal and social liberal traits in my beliefs. In short, I am an outright political pragmatist.

                      I am only interested in policies that work over the long term for the whole of society. Of course that rather excludes the National party who are short term thinkers only interested in small sections of society.

                      One thing I am not is nice. I am however interested in argument. Your skills at that are pretty damn pathetic.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      18 February 2011 at 10:47 pm

                      I’m finding the personal abuse that passes for “argument” here a little dull.

                      Take a look in the mirror some time.

                    • lprent …
                      18 February 2011 at 10:57 pm

                      That often happens to people spinning lines. But don’t hesitate to leave if you cannot give them up. Don’t insult our intelligence with ridiculous diversions that you cannot support in the context of the post. To date you haven’t attempted to even establish why your favorite spins are even relevant.

                      I am always happy to insult people who act like trolls.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      18 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

                      it’s been interesting engaging with the post-Clark version of the labour movement.

                      Can’t say it’s been a pleasure. But I’m certainly much more aware now of what the labour movement had with Clark and what it lost with her going.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 February 2011 at 11:43 pm

                      What is it with Righties being ‘offended’ by ‘personal abuse’ and ‘insults’?

                      National gets to label beneficiaries as bludgers with bad judgement, poor decision making skills, and who certainly shouldn’t have kids but thats OK?

                      Fraking hypocrites. Harden up. You’re telling everyone else to after all.

                    • wtl …
                      19 February 2011 at 1:34 am

                      “I’m inclined however to think Clark made the right decision and Key has at last come to the same conclusion.”
                      The previous government bought the current vehicles, but the present issue is regarding the replacement vehicles – which are being purchased by the current government, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

                      Anyway, the whole point of this post wasn’t that the vehicles shouldn’t be purchased (it doesn’t address this point), but rather Key tried to lie his way out of the situation, rather than just front up and say, “Yes, we purchased them because its better in the long run as shown by x, y and z”.

                      “What is it with Righties being ‘offended’ by ‘personal abuse’ and ‘insults’?”
                      Well, when I guess when you aren’t smart enough to come up with counter arguments, all you can do is complain that you aren’t being treated fairly. Boo hoo!

  33. Jim Nald 33
    18 February 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Calling calling hello hello captain panic panic pants on fire

  34. Neoleftie 34
    19 February 2011 at 12:01 am

    surely the issue isnt about when what or how they bought the nice shiney new elite status toys but that ther majority of people cant even dream to afford a car like that. The base economic studies done in the 90’s cost this type of car at around US$2000 to produce – rest made up of various profit taking at various levels of the supply chain channels. geeze i wana nice flash shiny car too.

  35. Neoleftie 35
    19 February 2011 at 12:13 am

    well the design costs are so great these days – turn around from concept to finalised product is now less than two years..

    I still want my shiney new car to KJ…looks like i will have to ask Mr GOFFey for a new kiwiwaggon

Links to post

  1. The Standard: posted on 17 February 2011 at 5:59 am