Key rewrites history for “Crazy Colin”

Written By: - Date published: 5:00 pm, November 13th, 2013 - 68 comments
Categories: accountability, activism, assets, child abuse, child discipline, child welfare, david cunliffe, john key, labour, privatisation, referendum, same old national, slippery, spin - Tags:

John Key spoke some appalling misrepresentations of facts in the House today, rewriting history in a way that seems to suit “Crazy” Colin Craig’s possible coalition bottom lines.

In Question Time Key said this in response to questions about the up-coming referendum on Asset Sales:

Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Prime Minister so arrogantly continuing his asset sales when the sales to date have transferred ownership of those assets from 100 percent of New Zealanders to just 2 percent, and does this not show that Kiwi mums and dads, far from being at the front of the queue, are not near the queue at all?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member is wrong—51 percent of the companies is owned by all New Zealanders. Secondly, my understanding is that the Superannuation Fund, ACC, and other major funds are shareholders of those companies, and they hold those shares on behalf of all New Zealanders. There is a huge number of KiwiSaver accounts. The member may remember those. They were set up under a Labour Government. They are owned by a wide range of New Zealanders. But here is an interesting one: there has been a number of referendums in recent times. One of them, for instance, was in relation to smacking, which was supported by 87.4 percent of New Zealanders. That was a policy pushed under a Labour Government and it “arrogantly” rejected it.

[…]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The election campaign in 2011 was dominated by this issue of the mixed-ownership model. National won that election with a comprehensive majority in any terms. This Parliament has faced on numerous occasions referendums for which there has been significant public opposition, and we do not even know, by the way, what the result of this referendum will be. But the most recent one was when 87.4 percent of New Zealanders opposed the smacking legislation. That was a policy pushed by Helen Clark, the Greens, and a Labour Government, and all that we can say is that Labour arrogantly ignored it. So when Labour members are in Government they just ignore things, and when they are in Opposition they roar like little tigers or lions, or whatever else it is over there that they do.

My bold.  Well, as gobsmacked commented, the opposition were slow to expose this out and out lie by John Key, however, Cunliffe finally got to it in the General Debate that followed Question Time.

Cunliffe on Key’s “brain fades” in today’s Question Time:

Because the smacking referendum was held in 2009 and the result was ignored by his government. He struck the deal with Helen Clark that resulted in the Bill being passed. And he and the entire National Caucus voted for it.

A march against John Key’s decision to ignore the referendum was sponsored to the tune of $450,000 by, guess who? Crazy Colin Craig.

And this is the same Colin Craig, who said last night on 3 News, in relation to a possible future coalition with a National-led government,

changing the anti-smacking laws is “a priority for so many New Zealanders” – which he said makes it his priority.

So, while Key said yesterday:

Take tearing up the anti-smacking law. The Prime Minister helped settle this, and he doesn’t want to go back.

“[It] wouldn’t be a top priority issue for a 2014 National government,” he said. “I would imagine that Colin Craig actually would have much better issues that he’s worried about.”

But today, Key seems to have begun rewriting history in order to be on the same page as Crazy Colin.

68 comments on “Key rewrites history for “Crazy Colin” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1
    13 November 2013 at 5:04 pm

    Does the Labour Party advocate following the outcome of the referendum on the amendment of Section 59 of the Crimes Act ?

    • mickysavage 1.1
      13 November 2013 at 5:06 pm

      Chocolate fish Ole if you can’t find anything in the referendum question that you agreed with.

    • Rhinocrates 1.2
      13 November 2013 at 5:56 pm

      Does the National Party, since they voted for it too?

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.2.1
        13 November 2013 at 6:10 pm

        The National Party is the party saying it is OK to ignore referenda. Labour is saying some can be ignored and others have to be followed.

        • gobsmacked 1.2.1.1
          13 November 2013 at 6:15 pm

          The National Party is the party saying it is OK to ignore referenda.

          Citation please?

        • aerobubble 1.2.1.2
          14 November 2013 at 4:38 pm

          Its nonsense in nonsense out again. The spanking referendum question was misleading. National like the idea of smearing processes in order to spin the consensus their way. Nobody believes that hitting a child is a good idea because nobody can could defend the argument that hitting an adult is ever deserved, and so hitting a child is cruel and amounts to cowardice. Now of course there are extreme subgroups of religious people who argue spanking but essential they are no different from Dunne’s Talliban.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.3
      13 November 2013 at 6:49 pm

      No such referendum took place. It asked kinda asked if parents should be allowed to hit their children but it did it such a way as to suggest the answer. In other words, it was a question that should not have been allowed. Can’t change the law on that now but we can, at least, be thankful in this case that parliament, including the National Party, passed the law making assault on children illegal.

      • karol 1.3.1
        13 November 2013 at 6:55 pm

        Yes, DTB. Very good point. And a further worry is that Craig funded that referendum – so what kind of ill-informed, badly constructed demands would he make on any government that he was in a formal alliance with?

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.1
          13 November 2013 at 10:43 pm

          IMO, he would certainly be the tail that wags the dog. Act and UF (Read Banks and Dunne) didn’t really do that as they were broadly in alignment with National anyway but Craig contradicts in some places.

  2. mickysavage 2
    13 November 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Hehe good one Karol. Slippery as …

  3. BLiP 3
    13 November 2013 at 5:19 pm

    ‘

    QUESTION ONE – 14 November 2013:

    The New Zealand Public: Does the Prime Minster stand by all his statements?

    The Prime Minister: Within that context, as far as I know, I was informed, to be honest, based on the information available at that time, to the best of my recollection, so I understand.

    • gobsmacked 3.1
      13 November 2013 at 5:40 pm

      But Key won’t be there, and in any case 24 hours is an eternity in the modern world.

      Labour were dozy today, and not for the first time. Key gets away with this for many reasons – including an incompetent, biased Speaker – but also because he isn’t tested anything like enough.

      Preparation 101 today (lunchtime, takes five minutes) should have been –

      “We’re gonna ask about the referendum, so what will Key say? Yes, it’s easy to predict (he really IS predictable) so we’ll hit back with …”.

      It’s the lack of basic professionalism that annoys me so much. Labour should now have a full-throttle election machine, all media, all opportunities, all the time. Including Parliament.

      • karol 3.1.1
        13 November 2013 at 5:55 pm

        It was odd watching this question live. Seemed like Key was having too much fun and too little opposition with his spinning, lies and clown routine.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.2
        13 November 2013 at 9:03 pm

        It’s the lack of basic professionalism that annoys me so much. Labour should now have a full-throttle election machine, all media, all opportunities, all the time. Including Parliament.

        It takes 3-6 months for a new Leader to get the ducks in a row mate. Even when you are a veteran like Cunliffe. (How the hell was Shearer supposed to have a chance???) And there is no spare three quarters of a million lying around to call in consultants and contractors like National can do at the snap of the fingers.

        • gobsmacked 3.1.2.1
          13 November 2013 at 9:23 pm

          It doesn’t take any expensive consultants to work out that Labour had Question no.1 in Parliament, and that there would be follow-ups. The consultants were all free on Twitter, telling Labour what to say. It was obvious.

          “Basic professionalism” is exactly what I meant: a brief meeting to decide priorities and tactics, allocate roles, and deliver. If Labour don’t have a “Goals for the Day” memo circulating every morning, with everyone on board, then somebody needs to ask why, and make it happen. The leader, or his chief of staff.

          It might seem a minor matter, but what happened today was classic opposition opportunity cost. The PM gets easy media opps every day, the Labour leader gets them rarely. Question Time is one of those opportunities, and it was wasted for another week.

          Again, it’s the insider-outsider gulf in persepective – Labour MPs still think the insider stuff is the real deal, so they think they “scored” in the general debate … and yet, nobody outside the bubble will ever know.

          Labour need to be told when they fail, and they failed today. Avoidable failure, must do better.

        • lurgee 3.1.2.2
          17 November 2013 at 9:09 am

          It takes 3-6 months for a new Leader to get the ducks in a row mate.

          Yeah, you’re right. Give him six more months …

      • mickysavage 3.1.3
        13 November 2013 at 9:25 pm

        Yesterday worked really well when Cunliffe had a series of direct questions which Key had to answer.

        Today it was not so successful because the initial question was really wide open and Key could slither all around the place.

        I must say I was surprised at the response. If you read it carefully it does not quite say that Labour ignored the referendum result while in power but it is close.

        Just goes to show you cannot trust a thing that Key says.

        And he and the nats will lie and scheme to hold onto power.

        • gobsmacked 3.1.3.1
          13 November 2013 at 9:40 pm

          It was a breathtaking lie, but also an astute one.

          I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve argued with people about the “smacking” law … “it was Clark!” – “But Key voted for it, and then kept it” – “But … Clark!!” etc …

          He knows that he didn’t take the heat for it, and he also knows he got away with it. (Who remembers John Boscawen’s bill in the last term that would have repealed the law, and National voted against him, i.e. to keep Sue Bradford’s law? Almost nobody. And today it seems, not Labour either).

          • mickysavage 3.1.3.1.1
            13 November 2013 at 9:52 pm

            The leader’s office is a brave talented new bunch of people who are learning every day. I am sure that today would have been a day of considerable learning.

        • Crunchtime 3.1.3.2
          13 November 2013 at 9:58 pm

          That shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone.

  4. Ad 4
    13 November 2013 at 5:20 pm

    The heart of the next election now comes down to this:
    Can Labour defeat Colin Craig in the new northern Auckland seat?

    Clearly Key will send the signal far earlier not to put your vote for any National hopeful.

    But it will be a strong conservative-leaning seat. We have seen this government hang on through every major legislative vote by one measly coalition MP.

    Will Cunliffe persuade Norman to see sense and withdraw any candidate?
    Will the Greens choose their virtue over power, again?

    Colin Craig, plus Ohariu-Belmont, are the fine axial balance of the next election, and Key just broadcast his play.

    Gear up people.

    • Rogue Trooper 4.1
      13 November 2013 at 5:23 pm

      The Father is catholic.

      • Ad 4.1.1
        13 November 2013 at 5:26 pm

        The Mother is Natural

        • Rogue Trooper 4.1.1.1
          13 November 2013 at 5:43 pm

          some Synchronicity (one Spirit, goes where it will)
          so I reconsider omitting
          “A great nation flows downward
          into intercourse with the world.
          The female of the world
          always prevails over the male by stillness. (cast some kept seeds today, hee hee, and some in the ground)
          Because stillness is considered lower,
          by lowering itself to a small nation
          a great nation takes a small nation;
          by being lower than a great nation
          a small nation takes a great nation.
          So one takes by lowering itself,
          another takes by being lower.
          A great nation wants no more
          than to include and nurture people; (this plenum, it seems)
          a small nation wants no more
          than to admit and serve people.
          Both get what they want,
          so the great should be below. (Francis gets it 😉 )

          trans- Thomas Cleary (not my preferred, yet comprehensible).

          off we go, Dum-de-do.

    • BLiP 4.2
      13 November 2013 at 5:23 pm

      ‘

      . . . Will Cunliffe persuade Norman to see sense and withdraw any candidate?
      Will the Greens choose their virtue over power, again? . . .

      Every time. Problem?

      • ghostrider888 4.2.1
        13 November 2013 at 5:28 pm

        no problemo here. I admire nearly all the Green MPs I follow, and occasionally interact with.
        Ah Ad, Virtue , and the era of the indelible record.

      • Ad 4.2.2
        13 November 2013 at 5:29 pm

        Only if NZF don’t make it.

        • BLiP 4.2.2.1
          13 November 2013 at 5:32 pm

          ‘

          I guess that makes Winston Peter’s the Labour Party’s Colin Craig. That’ll work.

          • Ad 4.2.2.1.1
            13 November 2013 at 5:46 pm

            Labour surely knows there’s still way too little dog and way too much wagging tail on its current polling – and I’m sure it does Cunliffe’s head no good. In fact I’m sure of it.

            But I’m confident enough that he will keep attracting about a point every poll, so that by June Labour is late-30s. That will push the competition where it should be.

            I’m also reasonably confident Norman really does want power this time.
            Not at any price, sure. But this is the largest global stage for the Green movement by any political measure. It’s time for him to step onto it.

            • karol 4.2.2.1.1.1
              13 November 2013 at 5:54 pm

              “Norman” is part of the Green Party, and not somehow in total charge of the Party direction. Nor is he the only co-leader. The party has a more democratic way of working out their policies and direction.

              • Ad …
                13 November 2013 at 5:58 pm

                I am sure that’s what it looks like from the inside, but in politics that’s largely irrelevant. He appears as the leader, and so he is.

                But to grant the internal machinery to you, what discussions if any are there in the Greens about these kinds of choices?

                • karol …
                  13 November 2013 at 6:02 pm

                  I’m not a member of the Green Party so I wouldn’t know. it only seems to me that many MSM journos treat Norman as the leader. It’s a pretty sexist slant, IMO. Should we be so manipulated by the MSM?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 November 2013 at 6:07 pm

                    I’d quite like to know what some senior-ish Green members think of the situation.

                    • Ad …
                      13 November 2013 at 6:26 pm

                      The Green MPs I speak to say portfolios have little to do with expertise, that there’s a clear pecking order, and they will get what they’re given as Ministries should they get into formal coalition.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 November 2013 at 6:32 pm

                      Sounds like discipline. A very good sign.

                  • Ad …
                    13 November 2013 at 6:30 pm

                    MSM not known for its gender sensitivity.
                    Perception pretty much is the truth in politics.
                    Norman is precise in the measure of oxygen he allows each of them.

                    • karol …
                      13 November 2013 at 6:32 pm

                      There’s no need for the left wingers to repeat MSM insensitivity – in fact, I would expect the opposite.

                  • Ad …
                    13 November 2013 at 6:41 pm

                    You should join.
                    Get the intel.
                    Sensitivities are a bit of a liability in this game.

                    • karol …
                      13 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

                      As I’ve commented many times, politics is still permeated by traditional masculine values, which tends to be reinforced by many on the left. It is something that I think puts a lot of people off “politics”, especially women.

                      I think it’s something that needs to be changed and not continually reinforced. Ignoring such “sensitivities” is in keeping with patriarchal values.

                      The Greens tend to do things differently: a less masculine style of politics. Yet still, like in many occupations done by large numbers of women, relatively more men tend to get given higher status.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 November 2013 at 6:59 pm

                      I can understand that, but in politics like everything else, decisions are made by those in the room. The voices heard are those which are sitting around the table. Those on the outside get to comment (or complain) after the fact.

                      Yet still, like in many occupations done by large numbers of women, relatively more men tend to get given higher status.

                      Yep. For the longest time women have had to play smarter and harder to get the same number of points on the board as men. It’s totally frustrating. But as the Lotto ad suggests – if you don’t play at all you can’t win.

                    • karol …
                      13 November 2013 at 7:07 pm

                      Well, I’m in agreement with Aaron Hawkins.

                      Our two largest and oldest parties spend the entire time plodding through their well-rehearsed parochial barrage, yelling over the top of each other and applauding wildly whenever they think their boss has told a funny.
                      […]
                      I understand that this is the game we inherited when our colonial forebears brought their Westminster Style over with them. It is telling, then, that only the parties from our pre-MMP electoral past insist on persisting with it. The Greens, New Zealand First (Winston prefers to frame his interruptions as Points of Order, generally), and the Government’s coalition partners were all well behaved, thankyou very much, and it made me proud to be a member, and representative, of the first of these. It isn’t just the politics of the Green Party that drew me in, but also the way we do politics.
                      […]
                      We have a serious problem with a disenfranchised electorate, particularly among younger voters, and the way our House of Representatives go about their business in Parliamentary Prime Time is as good a contributing factor as any as to why.

                      It’s not good enough to say, that the way of doing politics needs to be ignored in order to get into power. I see no real hope for democracy until the way of doing politics is changed in such a way as to re-engage those already turned off by our political system.

                      That’s why i vote Green, and why I won’t put up with the female co-leader being done down. Turei has made some excellent contributions on issues of social policy. But, in our system, it’s always the, most often male, politicians dealing with “the economy” that get the status.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 November 2013 at 8:59 pm

                      And you think that the way of doing politics can be changed most effectively from outside political parties?

                      That’s certainly a valid point of view.

                      But as Aaron suggests – it’s done from within political parties as well.

    • Bearded Git 4.3
      14 November 2013 at 6:49 am

      Mike Williams and Whale Oil say it will not be a new (blue) northern Auckland electorate but a new (red) West Auckland electorate. If so Craig will be given a free run in McCully’s electorate.

  5. Rogue Trooper 5
    13 November 2013 at 5:21 pm

    “I don’t know karate, but I know kah-ray-zee!”

  6. ghostwhowalksnz 6
    13 November 2013 at 5:31 pm

    “One of them, for instance, was in relation to smacking, which was supported by 87.4 percent of New Zealanders. That was a policy pushed under a Labour Government and it “arrogantly” rejected it.

    So Sharkey makes the ‘smacking bill’ a whipped policy for National Mps , so that the entire caucus votes for it.
    Now its arrogant Labour ?

  7. Tracey 7
    13 November 2013 at 6:01 pm

    ” the smacking referendum was held in 2009 and the result was ignored by his government.”

    So the PM lied to the house? I suppose he would get off on a technicality.

    • gobsmacked 7.1
      13 November 2013 at 6:07 pm

      Yes. Technically – if you parse his words carefully – he didn’t lie.

      It’s the opposition’s job to MAKE him lie. Just wait for the pointless playground noise to die down (instead of adding to it), calmly stand up and ask, ever so nicely …

      “Who was Prime Minister when the referendum was held?”.

      No extra bits, no jibber-jabber, just swift, sharp, lethal scalpel. Less is more, and after 5 frustrating years they still don’t get it. A high school debating team could do better.

  8. greywarbler 8
    13 November 2013 at 6:44 pm

    The outcry at the moment about the disgraceful behaviours from the young, and the sad results, may unfortunately feed into Colin Craig’s bag of beliefs and policies.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      13 November 2013 at 6:49 pm

      NZ has a decently strong conservative streak inside and outside of the big cities. If the big parties want to ignore that, that’s fine, but those votes wil go somewhere else when the opportunity arises. NZ has been lucky for a few elections now with no clearly credible uber-conservative political party. That’s about to change.

      • Rogue Trooper 8.1.1
        13 November 2013 at 7:12 pm

        Yes-siree Bob. Quite a few different demographic angles relative to the size of the total electorate, along with environmental issues. Still, conservative values are held by a variety of social sectors of significant size.

      • Ad 8.1.2
        13 November 2013 at 8:51 pm

        In the “8 Tribes of New Zealand”, they’re the Balclutha Tribe.

  9. TightyRighty 9
    13 November 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Hahahahahahhahaha, oh shit. Please keep posting about how jk walks all over labour and they only come up with snappy retorts long after the argument has finished.

    You guys aren’t even trying anymore. 2014….. In the fucking bag

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      13 November 2013 at 6:54 pm

      You guys aren’t even trying anymore. 2014….. In the fucking bag

      Yes I agree, long summer holidays for all National MPs, a well deserved break, don’t bother coming back in until sometime March perhaps…

  10. Ian 10
    16 November 2013 at 9:05 pm

    It’s the economy, stupid. Despite Lentoronto brown,this little country is humming. Thanks Lohn Key.

  11. residence 11
    24 November 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Good post however I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this subject?
    I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit
    more. Cheers!