Key’s lies are nothing new

27 comments on “Key’s lies are nothing new ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tsmithfield 1

   29 July 2010 at 12:11 pm

   Armstrong agrees with the figures that Key gave. So why call it a lie?
   • Bored 1.1

     29 July 2010 at 12:18 pm

     Sometimes you get a moment of pure joy. I just looked at the who posted box and saw tsmithfield on Key’s lies are nothing new ….the instant thought occured without having to read the article that one of those little moment had just occured, something oxymoronic in the line above stood out like the proverbial…a post from Mr Mendacity himself on lies.
   • joe bloggs 1.2

     29 July 2010 at 4:43 pm

     TS – calling John Key’s comments lies goes with the turf unfortunately. The paranoid conspiracy theorists on the left have a nasty habit of pointing the bone at the right and this posting’s another sorry example.

     Look no further at the rabid Left-wing outrage over Paula Bennett – even when Natasha Fuller admitted to fabricating evidence she presented to 3 News, the cries of corruption continued.

     And so another commentator at The Standard has just shown what muck rakers the neo-lib left really are.
   • Ari 1.3

     29 July 2010 at 9:31 pm

     Because he’s comparing oranges to mandarins by trying to imply he’s grown wages.

     He’s trying to claim he’s improved wages since the election, but he’s talking a low figure from the middle of Labour’s term, (instead of the figure at the beginning of his own term of government) and comparing it with now. That would be like me saying that everyone should buy their own home after having inherited a family house from my parents, say.
2. tsmithfield 2

   29 July 2010 at 12:23 pm

   Key told Parliament that he had been advised that the gap between gross average weekly earnings in Australia and New Zealand, adjusted for purchasing power parity, was $160.25. “That is certainly a lot less than it was in 2005, when it was $187.60.’

   Indeed it is.

   Key made an entirely factual statement. As the quote above shows, Armstrong agrees with that. Key can make a comparison with any time period he wants to. He clearly stated the comparison period was 2005. No lie in that so why say there is? Heck, even Marty’s graph on the previous article agrees with this.
   • jimmy 2.1

     29 July 2010 at 12:35 pm

     lol ts, boss hog was elected in 2008 not 2005. I believe the point of the post was about picking and choosing statistics. Whats the quote again? Lies, outright lies….
   • Pascal's bookie 2.2

     29 July 2010 at 12:47 pm

     “But ts’s choice of Armstrong quote was nothing short of outrageous in being so brazenly selective.”
   • Kevin Welsh 2.3

     29 July 2010 at 12:51 pm

     Shit, why stop there? Why not go back 10, 20 30 40 years? Or even better, why not do what you usually do and pick on an obscure part of the argument and hijack the thread in an entirely different direction.
   • MikeG 2.4

     29 July 2010 at 1:36 pm

     ts – you also have to look at what question Key was answering. It was asked in the context of the National govt closing the wages gap with Australia – so why did he go way back to 2005 – that was still the 2nd term of the Labour govt?!!

     Even Farrar has admitted that Brownlee made a fool of himself around this issue.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.5

     29 July 2010 at 1:39 pm

     Defending the indefensible again I see TS.

     Jonkey lied by omission (he purposefully left out critical information that disproved what he said) but it’s still lying.
3. tsmithfield 3

   29 July 2010 at 1:04 pm

   All he was doing was comparing the worst point under Labour with the worst point under National. That is a perfectly valid comparison to make. If National had just left office then it would be appropriate to compare the end point under Labour with the end point under National.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     29 July 2010 at 1:26 pm

     A valid comparison is not the same as a relevant comparison. You can make all the “valid comparisons” you want, but if they aren’t relevant, they don’t matter.
     • Ari 3.1.1

       29 July 2010 at 9:34 pm

       Actually, validity requires relevance, because validity is the logical process of laying out a link between factual claims and a hypothetical conclusion. Irrelevant information to an argument is never valid, but it can be factual.
   • jimmy 3.2

     29 July 2010 at 1:28 pm

     Yeah the point BEFORE working for families took full effect. No massive redistribution would close the gap, oh wait…

     Anti spam: wait
   • Draco T Bastard 3.3

     29 July 2010 at 1:41 pm

     TS, he lied in an attempt to make the NACT government look good. It was, and is, immoral.
4. John Armstrong 4

   29 July 2010 at 2:05 pm

   Tsmithfield…You are reading too much into what I wrote.. I was not making any judgment on the accuracy of Key’s figures, merely pointing out that ‘indeed” $160.25 is less than $187.60. I was trying to show Key was being highly selective, even when quoting his own figures. The piece was a parliamentary sketch — not an analysis of the actual size of the income gap.
   • tsmithfield 4.1

     29 July 2010 at 2:56 pm

     I do realise this John.

     However, I have just been making the point that it is a real stretch to call it a lie.
5. T(its-on-a-bull)Smithfield 5

   29 July 2010 at 2:11 pm

   TSmithfield – ‘it would be appropriate to compare the end point under Labour with the end point under National.’
   Please say you are looking at the imminent ending of this regime…..or just the last time this electorate got wise and got rid of this sort of appallingly crappy dangerous self-interested bossman style of governance.
   captcha – shames
6. Blue 6

   29 July 2010 at 2:23 pm

   If you want a good laugh, have a read of Duncan Garner’s latest blog on this topic.

   The last sentence alone is pure comedy gold.
   • toad 6.1

     29 July 2010 at 2:59 pm

     Beat me to it Blue – had it all lined up ready to link to.
7. johnbrash 7

   29 July 2010 at 2:29 pm

   John Key is a liar who does not care about working people. I live in a small rural town and most people do not trust John Key. I think it is disgusting that a man like John Key can be in government when he does not represent the majority of New Zealanders.
   • graham 7.1

     31 July 2010 at 4:23 pm

     Your town must be out of step with new zealand if you look at the polls.
     A small question does anyone work in your town ?
8. Pat 8

   29 July 2010 at 3:11 pm

   Speaking of lies, hows this one for a doozey:

   “So does Phil Goff have your full support until the next election”

   Cunners: “Yes he does”.
   • eye saw 8.1

     29 July 2010 at 5:22 pm

     Cunners”That is the election for leader of the opposition not the general election”.

     Liar?.

     Depends how you look at it.
9. robertguyton 9

   29 July 2010 at 4:53 pm

   tsmithfield – I had something to say to you, but saw my anti-spam word first, so I’ll simply pass that on to you.

   embarrassed
   • graham 9.1

     31 July 2010 at 4:29 pm

     Heres a question?
     Every day john key is abused here called shonkey,liar,corrupt etc but yet he is the most popular PM in 30 years.National is over 50% in the polls. so either the people dont believe the Standard or no reads it?

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 28 July 2010 at 11:51 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS