The lies keep coming

Written By: - Date published: 10:15 am, August 5th, 2009 - 15 comments
Categories: corruption, democracy under attack, john key, national/act government, Parliament - Tags:

Read this:

Hon Phil Goff: What analysis did Treasury do on the cost-effectiveness of the national cycleway scheme in producing jobs, and is he prepared to provide the Treasury analysis, oral and written, to members of this Parliament; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: Rigorous analysis was done.

Having read that, do you believe that (rigorous) analysis was done by Treasury on the cost-effectiveness of the cycleway?

Yes?

Well, you’ve been misled.

No Treasury cost/benefit analysis exists. Key misled you.

Idiot/Savant discovered this when he asked Key’s office, under the Official Information Act, to see the analysis Key claimed exists and they responded that no such analysis exists.

As I/S states: “the correct answer to Phil Goff’s question was in fact “none”. But that answer would have looked bad for the Prime Minister and his pet project, so instead of admitting it, he responded in a way designed to give the impression that a) there had been a cost-benefit analysis; and b) that analysis was performed by Treasury – both of which are false”

Key and his ministers need to realise that the privileging of governing is not a prize for winning a popularity contest.

We can’t have the people charged with administering our government breaking the law (Bully Bennett), rorting their allowances (Bludger Bill et al), ignoring constitutional convention (Key on Worth), governing by impulse rather than analysis (Key – cycleway), or purposely deceiving Parliament and the public (Key – cycleway). Being government is not a licence to do whatever the hell you want.

Key might be about to get a sharp lesson in the consequences of governing dishonestly. Labour has taken a privileges compliant over his misleading answer. Now all eyes turn to Lockwood Smith. Will he upheld Parliament’s rule, which are meant to ensure ministers don’t lie to us? Or will he buckle to political expediency?

15 comments on “The lies keep coming ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pascal's bookie 1
    5 August 2009 at 10:30 am

    You could argue that he didn’t lie* (except by ommission), but if the standard is ‘misleading the house’ then surely he’s in trouble.

    There is no way to interpret his answer, in a way that answers the question, without it being an actual lie.

    *(You’d have to be a hack, and front with the Rigorous analysis)

    • Bright Red 1.1
      5 August 2009 at 10:38 am

      yeah, the standard is misleading the House. That letter from his office tries to argue it’s not a techincal lie, weak.

  2. Chris G 2
    5 August 2009 at 10:54 am

    This government is a joke.

  3. Daveski 3
    5 August 2009 at 10:57 am

    No one’s listening. Labour’s credibility on this issue is nil (apart from the flat earth society here) will the same could be said for Standard following two posts that stretch the limits of credibility beyond breaking point.

    Frankly, Labour must have stepped on a crack while walking under a ladder etc etc.

    In a previous life, they may have amounted to something.

    Key might be about to get a sharp lesson in the consequences of governing dishonestly.

    The unintended irony of this illustrates my point – the general populace is getting sick of self serving politicians – your lot and the other lot.

    You’re living in a glass house.

  4. Armchair Critic 4
    5 August 2009 at 11:00 am

    I am interested in seeing how little effort is required to be defined as rigorous. Was any analysis done at all?

  5. aj 5
    5 August 2009 at 11:02 am

    After watching quite a bit of the house this year, my pick is “buckle to political expediency”

    • felix 5.1
      5 August 2009 at 12:06 pm

      Yep, me too.

      The pattern of behaviour I’ve noticed is that Lockwood is pretty fair most of the time and seems relatively impartial as long as the issue is of little consequence, but as soon as anything comes up that might actually damage Key or the govt he dives into the trench to fight for the Nats.

  6. Rascally Rabbit 6
    5 August 2009 at 11:16 am

    How much rigorious treasury cost effecitveness analysis was done on the purchase of KiwiRail?

    Which in operation is similar to the cycleway…. i.e that. they are both cruel jokes!

  7. Ianmac 7
    5 August 2009 at 11:45 am

    Daveski: Please be clearer when you trot out the line that it is all right because the others did it too.
    I think a complaint about misleading the House has to be lodged on the day or the next sitting day doesn’t it? Too late?

    • Daveski 7.1
      5 August 2009 at 11:55 am

      I was trying not to be that simplistic.

      I think the point is that no one apart from the rabid partisan are interested in attributing blame to a party as the general populace sees all politicians as self-centred hypocrites.

      I’m not trying to say it is OK – I’ve consistently said that the housing thing is a rort and that politicians are pragmatic with the truth as it affects their political fortunes. I was pleased to see LP largely agree with that.

      Given everything else that’s happening at present, this line of attack seems particularly futile.

  8. Ari 8
    5 August 2009 at 11:51 am

    So, what’s the bet Lockwood rules that he merely stated that rigorous analysis was done and didn’t specify that it was on the cycleway, thus he wasn’t lying? 😛

    • Ianmac 8.1
      5 August 2009 at 11:58 am

      Good one Ari. Actually the rigorous analysis done was on the cost saving by MP’s living in their own houses in Wellington, so the question was the wrong one not the answer. 🙂

      • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1
        5 August 2009 at 12:37 pm

        It’s not in the public interest for the PM to clarify which particular question his answer would be a truth filled response to.

  9. Rex Widerstrom 9
    5 August 2009 at 3:51 pm

    You lefties just don’t understand the concept of truthiness, do you?

    John Key is rapidly becoming our most truthy Prime Minister, far exceeding the standards of his predecessors who, to be fair, aspired to such truthification but fell slightly short.

    (The trick is not to use qualifiers. Instead of saying a clearly sleazy crook is “probably” not guilty of anything but “helpfulness” you say unequivocally he is not guilty and then, when he’s led away in handcuffs, say you meant “…of sheep rustling”).