S&P outs Key on two more downgrade lies

Written By: - Date published: 1:24 pm, October 10th, 2011 - 49 comments
Categories: debt / deficit - Tags: ,

The lies keep flowing as National desperately tries to limit the damage from the double downgrade. First, it was ‘doesn’t matter’ – Treasury says it does. Then, “hey, it’s just private debt” – the agencies’ reports say otherwise. Then it was just an international problem – less 1/4 of the OECD has been downgraded. Then, somehow, it was all Labour’s fault and would be worse under Labour – S&P says they’re lying on that too.

In the House last week, John Key said:

“[S&P] did go on to say, though, that if there was a change of Government, that downgrade would be much more likely.”

Don’t know about you but that just didn’t seem credible. No international body like S&P is going to risk its relationship with future governments by making such remarks. Sure enough:

Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst Kyran Curry, who attended the meeting in Auckland, said that would not have happened.

“In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties.

“It is something we just don’t do,” Mr Curry said. “We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”

Another Key lie exposed.  Curry goes on to say:

Asked what New Zealand needed to do to have its higher ratings restored, he said it would require a sustained improvement in New Zealand’s external position first.

This would come through stronger export performance and an improvement in public savings – “getting back to what New Zealand was actually doing not three years ago,” Mr Curry said.

Rather contradicts the line that NZ is in a stronger position than 3 years ago. Course, that never made sense anyway. Don’t get downgraded for making your position stronger.

 

49 comments on “S&P outs Key on two more downgrade lies ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Phaedrus 1
    10 October 2011 at 1:43 pm

    While all politicians are ‘economical with the truth’ as Oliver North said about 30 years ago, Key has take this to a whole new level. Lying is second nature to him- it is his automatic response when cornered. There have been so many examples over the past few years.

    • ianmac 1.1
      10 October 2011 at 2:13 pm

      Yes but another way of dealing with issues is to avoid then altogether. Cat talk is much easier!
      Surely the electorate will take note of Key dodgy talk?

      • Jim Nald 1.1.1
        10 October 2011 at 8:17 pm

        It’s called, as my nephew would say, ‘making shit up’. And then trading or politicking with it.

  2. Dave Kennedy 2
    10 October 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Key has a long, unchallenged history of lying and providing misinformation. Parliament does not allow members to call others liars but I do struggle with understanding how deliberate misinformation isn’t the same as a lie.

    Just incase people have forgotten these:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/04/lying-fudging-and-misinformation.html

    • pollywog 2.1
      10 October 2011 at 5:56 pm

      Sure he’s a liar, but the thing is, he keeps getting caught out, which goes to show what i’ve always said…

      …he’s a shit liar. His face reveals the truth. He doesn’t even believe the shit he’s spouting.

  3. mike 3
    10 October 2011 at 2:23 pm

    A sociopath will never conceed anything when cornered on a point. It’s always someone else’s fault, or it’s a stupid or irrelevant question, or they just lie. They lie so much that they get away with it because their ‘victim’, whose trust they have won through their charm and lies and telling them what they want to hear, can’t imagine that the whole person is a fraud. That just can’t be can it?

    A sociopath will look you in the eye and tell you that black is white if they need to. And they will makte you feel stupid if you question it. Maybe it would be dangerous if you didn’t believe it. This is their special skill. There are liars, good liars, and then there are sociopaths. People do not understand this, and that is their advantage.

  4. TightyRighty 4
    10 October 2011 at 2:32 pm

    errr, your right, they aren’t rating parties, they are rating governments. So if labour were in government it would be worse. which is hardly a lie, so thank god labour won’t be in power anytime soon

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 4.1
      10 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

      How can a lie cover a hyperthetical event? Speculating on hypothetical events are what astrologers do.

      • Akldnut 4.1.1
        10 October 2011 at 3:31 pm

        “Speculating on hypothetical events are what astrologers do.”

        So not true – there’s accountants, politicians, economists, investors, business men……
        The list goes on.

    • mike 4.2
      10 October 2011 at 2:43 pm

      Ladies and gentlemen, the rock solid reasoning of the right wing.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.3
      10 October 2011 at 3:43 pm

      Actually, if Labour was in government we probably wouldn’t have got the downgrades, after all, we got them in part because of NActs policies of giving tax cuts to the rich, borrowing and no plan to get us back in balance.

    • Blighty 4.4
      10 October 2011 at 4:15 pm

      S&P never said that a downgrade would be more likely under Labour, as Key claimed they said. Therefore, his claim was a lie.

    • mik e 4.5
      10 October 2011 at 7:13 pm

      Tighty You promised us you were not going to go on this blog again all talk and no delivery no wonder you [are] like Key.Finished sulking. I know why your called tighty your so far up Keys posterior you can’t see any one else’s point of view.Key is like a little child thats been caught out refuses to take responsibility for their mistakes [I thought this was the party of personal responsibility],Then shifts the blame to some one else .Standard and poors already laid out actions this govt should be taking national said we don’t do what rating agencies tell us [BillS english]. SO KEY IS A LIAR

    • fmacskasy 4.6
      16 October 2011 at 10:44 am

      Hmmm, unfortunately for you, Tighty, recent history doesn’t support that;

      http://www.nzdmo.govt.nz/sovereigncreditratings

      Note that three credit downgrades happened duting three National governments; 1994, 1998, and this year. And if you include the Rogernomics period – that makes FOUR neo-liberal governments that were downgraded.

      Credit ratings agencies – they seem “risk averse” to new right governments.

      And look at 10 September 1998 – AA+ (negative outlook)

      But when Labour came to power – 7 March 2001 AA+ (stable outlook)

      Stable outlook?!

      Nah, must be a mistake. I’ll go back and re-check the following period…

      6 August 2008 AA+ (stable outlook) re-affirmed

      “Reaffirmed”?!

      Well, bugger me! If rather does seem that credit agencies find favour with centre-left governments rather than centre-right administrations.

      Whoda thunk?!

  5. just saying 5
    10 October 2011 at 5:19 pm

    Unravelling unravelling. And booze is no longer his friend.

    I’ve never known a politician who lied as much as Key does. Can the media keep shielding him?

  6. randal 6
    10 October 2011 at 5:21 pm

    National is supposed to be the party of business so improved export performance should be a breeze. But the people who support national are conspicuopus consumers who need money to support their view of themselves as big men. It is obvious that national cannot resolve this contradiction and the sooner they let Labour takeover and fix the economy properly without having to bend to the psycholoigcal predilections of wannabees the better.

  7. Ed 7
    10 October 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Key is now waving an email from a ‘friend of a friend’, that gives the comment as his inference . . . .
    Apparently he was ‘uncomfortable’ at the press conference – must be time to move right along . . .

    • ianmac 7.1
      10 October 2011 at 6:29 pm

      Just saw him on TV3 News. They showed his Chamber words- twice! And Shifty Eyes denied responsibility. Would you call that lying?

      • fmacskasy 7.1.1
        10 October 2011 at 6:41 pm

        Ianmac, I was wondering if it would be shown on TV3.

        TV1’s “news” consisted of rugby, sharks in an Aussie golf-course pond (I kid you not), Paul McCartney’s third marriage, a sperm whale in danger of being stranded, a Michael Jackson memorial concert, rugby kicking-robots (again, I kid you not), and more rugby. But not a word about our disingenuous Dear Leader…

        No wonder Radio NZ banned ‘Bomber’ Bradbury for telling it like it is. ‘Bomber’ obviously didn’t talk enough rugby.

        • The Voice of Reason 7.1.1.1
          10 October 2011 at 6:48 pm

          3News clip here.

          • mik e 7.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2011 at 7:32 pm

            TVoR credibility downgrade

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.2
            10 October 2011 at 7:33 pm

            Key seriously seriously sucked on that clip. OMG TV3 comes through.

            • Jim Nald 7.1.1.1.2.1
              10 October 2011 at 8:21 pm

              What?? I will start tuning into TV3 again in the lead-up to the election.

              Btw, there is an appropriate, gesture that media interviewers during press conferences can use to complement John Key’s throat slitter gesture .. it involves two fingers .. and a scissor-like motion .. how about a tongue cutter?

        • mik e 7.1.1.2
          10 October 2011 at 7:16 pm

          They were probably threatened with a funding cut unlike tv3 who got $43 million.

  8. pollywog 8
    10 October 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Just seen the drunken monkey on TV3 in a Patrick Gower piece scratching his balls for answers for an answer as to why he lied about the credit downgreade being more likely if Labour were government and i was soooo embarrassed !!!

    This is our prime minister coming off like a cheap carnival clown.

  9. Afewknowthetruth 9
    10 October 2011 at 6:50 pm

    Just look at a ‘brighter future’ billboard…. the eyes and the mouth.

    Key knows everything National stands for is a lie, and he’s unable to conceal it.

  11. Cin77 11
    10 October 2011 at 7:03 pm

    So he got his info from an unnamed email source, even after the official word from S&P themselves is that they don’t work that way?

    What a load of bullshit! How the f**k does he get away with this crap? There’s no way the average Joe Bloggs can ignore it for long.

  12. The Voice of Reason 12
    10 October 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Fantastic body language in the 3News piece. 1.15 into the clip, Pinokeyo goes for the proboscis.
     
    Which is, ahem, a sign that he’s fibbing.
     
    “Touching it.

    Touching the nose can indicate that the person has detected a bad smell. It is also common signal from a person who is not telling the truth.

    When a person lies, blood vessels in their nose may dilate, making the nose swell or appear redder. The nasal engorgement then causes mast cells to release histamine, which makes the nose itch and so may lead to the person touching or scratching it (this is probably the basis of the Pinocchio story).

    Rubbing the finger alongside the nose can indicate disagreement. It may also be a semi-suppressed nose-scratch related to lying.

    Pinching the bridge of the nose can show the person is evaluating something, usually negatively and with some frustration.”
     
    Big ups to Paddy Gower. Must have been fun putting that segment together!
     
     
     

  13. Tiger Mountain 13
    10 October 2011 at 7:26 pm

    I got it in one Voice as I watched. Funny, I talked to Helen Clark years back, but after the 08 election, near Valley Rd in Mt Eden Auckland, the local Labour party caravan and people were there and we had a brief chat. I had met her before in union circumstances, and for the benefit of “RWNJs” as they have become known, have never been a Labour member. I said “that guy is not my, or my family’s Prime Minister etc.”, and she replied “he lied his way into office and he is still at it”. Exactly.

    • The Voice of Reason 13.1
      10 October 2011 at 7:45 pm

      Shonkey is as Shonkey does! He’s always been given slack for mangling the language, but this is him just straight out lying. And not being very good at it. So, in just a few short days we’ve seen him lie twice (in Parliament and in the news conference) and issue a death threat once (the gesture). Stay classy, John, it’s not too late to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  14. RedLogix 14
    10 October 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Notice carefully how none of the usual RWNJ’s have turned up here acknowledging that their hero has fracked up here. Nothing along the lines of, “Well yes this isn’t a good look really, poor form and Key needs to apologise for this slip in judgement”.

    Not one.

    In fact the lie doesn’t matter to them. In their eyes it was just a bit of ‘tactical political point-scoring’. The principle of not lying to Parliament has no resonance for them.

    What they are sulking about is that S&P had the temerity to out Key in the lie and that he was careless enough to be caught. And you can only play the “Explaining in losing” card just so often. Once people start naming it for the evasion it is, the original offense is only compounded by the arrogance.

    The teflon was pretty damn thick, but it’s coming off in lumps now.

  15. fmacskasy 15
    10 October 2011 at 7:56 pm

    As an aside, we watched “Wag the Dog” last night in our home. Ok, we’re too small to declare war on Albania… maybe the Cook Islands?

    Whoever Key has on his staff to set up deflections – they’re pretty damn good at it.

  16. DJL 16
    10 October 2011 at 8:08 pm

    The TV3 vid is not coming up on the link, is it just me or have they pulled it?

  17. Puddleglum 17
    10 October 2011 at 9:08 pm

    If we take John Key’s source at ‘his'(?) word, the meeting being referred to involved some economists, a couple of whom worked for S&P (?) and who were the ones who ‘took an interest’ in NZ’s rating.

    Now, whatever these economists may or may not have said in that room to those involved, it clearly was not an official S&P position or conclusion.

    Since John Key had the email that detailed the kind of meeting it was and also, apparently, phoned his source to check what had been said, he would have known that this was not the official S&P position.

    Key did not say in Parliament that a couple of people who worked for S&P said the downgrade was more likely with a Labour government; what he said by direct inference was that S&P – with all its official, institutional weight behind that name – had stated this.

    Even in the kindest interpretation of Key’s interpretation of the information available to him from his source he is still involved in trying to pass off some informal, off the record, unofficial comments from employees of S&P as being the opinion of the S&P credit rating agency.

    No wonder S&P called him on it – to gain a petty political point in little old New Zealand Key, in effect, has said that S&P are involved in informally trying to influence the politics of sovereign states. 

    Key’s truth may be worse than Key’s lie. (If you see what I mean.) 

  18. fmacskasy 18
    11 October 2011 at 10:33 am

    In the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament, he refers to “…when Standard and Poor’s was giving a meeting in New Zealand…”.

    But the “email” refers to “…a session with a range of economists yesterday morning – every year they do this session – with economists from Aus plus all the main NZ banks, and this year two from Standard and Poors…”.

    In John Key’s statement, the meeting was organised by Standard & Poors.

    In the email, the meeting was held by “a range of economists… with economists from Aus plus all the main NZ banks”.

    So who organised this meeting?

    • prism 18.1
      11 October 2011 at 12:30 pm

      “A range of economists” – how far does the range extend? Does anyone know who the NZ economists were at this meeting? Whomever, Key said he has given reliable information before.
      Most bank economists seem to be right wing. Would Bill Rosenberg – the trade union oriented – Berl, etc. have been invited? Was there a Kiwibank economist there – do they have a tame one I wonder?
      I guess it rules out Whaleoil or Farrar – they aren’t economists just dogs sitting ready with an ear to the gramophone speaker.

    • Puddleglum 18.2
      11 October 2011 at 2:09 pm

      Yes, Frank. My thoughts too.

      The email description of the meeting didn’t specify that it was a S&P meeting.

      Part of the problem is Key’s incredibly garbled use of language. What does “giving a meeting” mean? “organising a meeting”? “‘presenting to a meeting [i.e., ‘giving a presentation’]”? “participating in a meeting”?

      You don’t ‘give’ a meeting – you ‘have’ one, ‘organise’ one, ‘attend’ one, ‘agree’ to one, etc.. You might ‘give’ an audience (as with royalty), but surely that’s not what he meant and, if he did, that’s not what the email described. 

  19. thejackal 19
    11 October 2011 at 11:16 am

    I’ve had a response from the Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith already, concerning my formal complaint regarding John Key vs S&P:

    You are correct that honesty in Parliament is of utmost importance, particularly in the context of question time. Ministers who discover that they have provided incorrect information to the House of Representatives are obliged to seek to remedy this, usually by way of a personal explanation to the House. A member who had evidence that another member had willfully misled the House would be expected to raise the matter with the Speaker at the earliest opportunity, for the Speaker to consider whether to refer the question to the Privileges Committee. It is for the Privileges Committee to undertake any investigation.

    I wonder if that means Bill English is in trouble as well, being that he’s the most likely person who is John Key’s “source”.

    • fmacskasy 19.1
      12 October 2011 at 9:41 am

      Well done! *thumbs up*

      As for Key’s “source” – yes, it would be either himself or someone like English. I doubt he’d trust the Office Junior to write something that could be utterly explosive if it got out in the public domain. He’d have no choice but to resign.

  20. Cloaca 20
    11 October 2011 at 2:34 pm

    I am still awaiting Standard & Poor’s explanation as to how they got their credit rating on AMI so wrong.

    I have doubts what is “said” in private to what is “said” in public. I have had commercial experience with them, and other US, for US, by US agencies.

  21. fmacskasy 21
    12 October 2011 at 9:43 am

    Something which intrigued me;

    In the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament, he refers to “…when Standard and Poor’s was giving a meeting in New Zealand…”.

    But the “email” refers to “…a session with a range of economists yesterday morning – every year they do this session – with economists from Aus plus all the main NZ banks, and this year two from Standard and Poors…”.

    In John Key’s statement, the meeting was organised by Standard & Poors.

    In the email, the meeting was held by “a range of economists… with economists from Aus plus all the main NZ banks”.

    So who organised this meeting?

  22. fmacskasy 22
    16 October 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Well, well, well…

    It seems that Dear Leader has shot himself in his foot. Both feet. And hands.

    It seems that, according to the NZ Debt Management Office, it isn’t Labour that suffers the crdedit downgrades – it’s actually… NATIONAL!

    http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/john-keys-foot-in-mouth-syndrome/

Links to post