Nats split on rail link?

Written By: - Date published: 3:59 pm, January 28th, 2016 - 30 comments
Categories: Steven Joyce, transport - Tags: ,

National has a long history of opposing and mocking Auckland’s City Rail Link – A brief history of National MPs trashing the rail link they just funded.

Yesterday Key folded and agreed to (probably) cut back the five year delay he had previously insisted on. Naturally this was reported as exciting leadership on the issue.

So what’s up with Steven Joyce today? From Labour – Joyce destroys Government rail link certainty

“Steven Joyce has again poured cold water on network charging as a way for Aucklanders to pay their share of the City Rail Link. Today he suggested the Government may require the sale of public assets as a precondition for paying its half share.

“This is in sharp contrast with the Prime Minister’s indications yesterday that he is open to considering network charging.

“The Government is all over the place. Within 24 hours of the Prime Minister’s announcement on the City Rail Link, all that certainty is now in doubt,” Phil Twyford says.

Expect Joyce to be force-fed some dead rats shortly.

30 comments on “Nats split on rail link?”

    • Detrie 1.1

      Anything to do with public transport or infrastructure has always been too complex for Nat politicians. Just the way their heads [don’t] work. We see this with their involvement in Skycity, conference centres, New York apartments etc,
      It makes them feel good and more important than the rest of us. Rail, transport, electricity, environment upkeep just isn’t sexy enough.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

        Anything to do with public transport or infrastructure has always been too complex for Nat politicians.

        They understand that public anything does not equal private profit. And that is something that they truly can not abide hence their need to privatise everything.

  1. ianmac 2

    Audrey published her version of Joyce’s version of Labour “split” over TPPA.
    Will she publish the National “split” expressed by Joyce? Pigs flying….!

  2. mac1 3

    Whatever else, Joyce’s comments about his requirements for asset sales by the Auckland Council underlines a large part of National’s agenda for privatisation, still alive and kicking in its stall, ready for another run.

    If any need an example of the modern National Party’s agenda as opposed to a modern Labour’s policy agenda being more than a cigarette paper apart, then this is one. TPPA is another.

    • Sacha 3.1

      Yet Labour are still unable to articulate those differences in ways that the public engages with. That had better change quick smart. Clock ticking louder.

  3. alwyn 4

    Where did Key say that National would be happy with tolling and that City assets need not be sold.
    I can only see comments by Brown and Twyford claiming such things. It wouldn’t be the first time either of those put words into other people’s mouths would it?
    What did Key himself say? Anyone got a link?

    • mac1 4.1

      “The Prime Minister firmed up the Government’s commitment to the project and pledged the taxpayer would pay about half the total cost.

      He said the Government had not ruled out allowing the council to toll motorists to help fund its share of the project.

      “If council wants to further tax or charge Aucklanders we are lukewarm to that because in the end it reduces the available disposable income of Aucklanders and makes Auckland as a place to do business a little more expensive,” Mr Key said.

      “We haven’t ruled those things out but we have said they would absolutely need to justify them.” NZ Herald

      First, Key has not ruled out tolling. Second, this is classic Key modus operandi- flying a kite to see which way the wind is blowing to reduce risk to his popularity before pronouncing. Hedge, weasel, mislead, prevaricate, delay.

      He also, note, will only pay half the cost but wants to tell the other partner how he finds the money to pay his share.

      • alwyn 4.1.1

        I watched the clip of Key and Brown talking on the Herald site.
        Key very carefully doesn’t say that he will allow tolling He does say that the funding has to be looked at, but he is very careful not to say how or what he will accept.
        He is a very, very skilled speaker. People think they hear things that he hasn’t said.
        As you say he may not have ruled out tolling. He hasn’t given any indication of agreeing to it either. Infuriating isn’t he?
        He is entitled to talk about tolling state highways of course and to rule it in or out as he pleases. The New Zealand taxpayer owns them, not the residents of Auckland.

        • mac1

          “He is a very, very skilled speaker.” Agreed. But skilled at what? Deception, omission, misleading. Skilled at saying what people want to hear, even seeming to say these things, and being able to wriggle away later. He is deliberately vague, all wrapped up in a blokish phraseology.

          Infuriating? Yes, and he will eventually feel the political rage of those who will react against being so deceived.

          • alwyn

            He is a politician and I think, like Chris Trotter, that he is the best we have seen for a very, very long time.

            All good politicians operate in this way. The best never lie but they certainly leave you thinking you heard something you didn’t.
            Blip’s list of Key’s lies is taken as gospel by the majority of commentators on this site. I had a look at a couple of them, chosen randomly, a couple of weeks ago. Key hadn’t actually said the things he was accused of saying. He hadn’t in fact lied, despite Blip having thought he had.

            Only a very few people actually feel the way you suggest
            “he will eventually feel the political rage of those who will react”
            He is, after 7 years as popular as ever with the New Zealand public. I can’t see that changing.

            • sabine

              define New Zealand Public.

              the 53% that voted against National by voting for other parties?
              the 1 million people that could not be bothered voting.

              or the few that get asked in polls?

              • alwyn

                1. You cannot say that the people who didn’t vote for National “voted against Key”. Some, certainly. Once you get past Labour it isn’t that easy.
                Even the Green Party don’t really qualify. After all Norman, before the election ran the line, for a while, that they could work with National.

                2. The 1 million don’t count. They simply didn’t vote and that is all you can say about it. It is ridiculous to say they opposed Key.

                3. The few who were polled. The polls on preferred PM haven’t changed in the last 8 or 9 years. Key passed Helen Clark in 2007 and has stayed way ahead of anyone else ever since. If you think the sample group has changed in character, and they are steadily polling more and more National leaning people, you don’t understand polling. The people running polls really do know their business.

                Sorry but as long as his numbers stand up in the polls you are irrational to argue against my proposal.
                Lots of people on this blog, before the last election, gave their “predictions”. They weren’t predictions. They were what they dreamed off. Remember things like 16-20% for the Green Party? 35% for Labour? Well the polls were right.

                • weka

                  Telling lies about the Greens, again 🙄

                  The Greens will work with any party on policy. The Greens will only support a National formation of government if National policy is close to Green policy. But it’s not and not likely to be any time soon, therefore in reality we may as well say the GP won’t form govt with National. You’ve misrepresented Norman’s actions.

                  • alwyn

                    I am sick and tired of being accused of telling lies about the Greens
                    Putting a “smiley” on the comment doesn’t change it.

                    Norman did run a line that working with National could be possible.
                    Did he sound keen on it? No, but he certainly didn’t reject it as not being possible did he?
                    Was he trodden on the way Labour are treading on Shearer?

                    • weka

                      Norman wasn’t talking about forming govt with National or supporting a National govt via confidence and supply though, which is what you appear to have been implying. The Greens have always said they will work on policy with any party where there is common ground, that’s what Norman was talking about. If that’s not what you meant to imply it’s on you to be clear in how you communicate. If you are sick of being called out for lying, then stop doing it.

                      “Was he trodden on the way Labour are treading on Shearer?”

                      See, there you are, doing it again. Norman fucked up IMO because of the timing and because he was burntout and handled the communication and follow up badly. But he didn’t break ranks with his party in the way that Shearer has. See my first point.

                  • You_Fool

                    And misrepresent Norman’s actual words. The Greens spelled out exactly the criteria that was required for the fabled Blue-Green coalition and even then pointed out all the ways that National don’t meet those criteria.

                    You have to go back to 2011 to have the actual election where the Greens were a bit more vague on their inability to work with national (though even then they were obviously not going too, they just didn’t articulate it the same)

            • Draco T Bastard

              All good politicians operate in this way.

              Nope. Good politicians don’t have to lie and prevaricate.

              The best never lie but they certainly leave you thinking you heard something you didn’t.

              That would be lying:

              A deceiver tries to create an impression that causes others to be misled, by not telling all the facts, or creating a false impression.

              EDIT: You just admitted to admiring someone for his lying.

              He is, after 7 years as popular as ever with the New Zealand public.

              No he isn’t.


              • alwyn

                You use your definition if you like. I regard lying as saying something you know to be untrue. I do not agree that Key does that.
                I haven’t, as you suggest therefore “admitted to admiring someone for his lying.”

                Your article about PM popularity was 8 months ago and you will note it says
                “dipping below 40 per cent for the first time since early 2014.”
                So it hadn’t actually changed in the time between early 2014 and mid 2015 had it, at least according to this article?

                I went looking for a reasonable source to illustrate my statement on popularity. A convenient one, that measures it, is the final Herald Digipoll for the last 5 years. They do preferred PM. They were all in December except in 2011 when it was November The results were, year in ()
                (2011) 66.3% (2012) 65.6 (2013) 61.9 (2014) 65.0 (2015) 65.2
                Frankly I couldn’t be bothered going back any further. The numbers differ greatly from the TV3 ones but should be consistent with within themselves.
                Not much change there is there? The figures are from David Farrar’s Curiablog. He is good enough to publish all polls there.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  I regard lying as saying something you know to be untrue.

                  Misleading people is saying something that isn’t true.

                  So it hadn’t actually changed in the time between early 2014 and mid 2015 had it, at least according to this article?

                  I’ve heard that it has but only did a quick search. But I’ll leave it to Ropata:

                  Popularity is a crude measure of fitness for leadership,

                  Especially when that popularity is based upon lies.

                  • alwyn

                    “I’ve heard that it has but only did a quick search”
                    In other words you couldn’t find a damn thing to justify your statement that “No he isn’t.”
                    Come on admit your claim was bs.
                    Even the fact that you bring in some irrelevant comment by Ropata shows you haven’t got a leg to stand on. He obviously accepts that Key is very popular.

  4. AB 5

    No doubt they will ‘persuade’ Auckland Council to fund it via asset sales and find a 2016 mayoral candidate who is supportive of that approach. Two pluses to that approach – they get a right wing mayor because s/he is the only one who can ‘deliver’ the rail link, and their cronies get juicy assets to take over and act like the rentiers they naturally are. Taxpayers also indirectly subsidise said rentiers by putting up 50%. Looks like win/win for the Nats , more wealth redistributed upwards.

  5. Tautuhi 6

    Goff will sell off Aucklands Regional Assets to the Merchant Banking Fraternity for a pittance, obviously Key & Co have a plan, if it smells like a rat it probably is a rat?

  6. Tautuhi 7

    National can always change their minds if there is a shortage of funds available?

  7. shorts 8

    good cop / bad cop

    Key here’s ya rail link – everyone cheers
    joyce privatize your strategic assets to pay – everyone (but big business and mom and pop investors lol) boos

    Pretty standard behavior from the govt – key protected from any negative fallout while party agenda moves forward

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1


      Exactly. Key and National will be looking for ways to ensure that this will cost us far more in ways that will boost private profit.

  8. Nobody is ever going to live to see the rail put up if they don’t get their act back together on this. Honestly speaking, all we want is a working transport system that we don’t have to wait a lifetime to get on board with or to squeeze onto just like that picture right there. They really need to get working on a compromise or an agreement so that the people don’t suffer from all their indecision!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    3 weeks ago