What exactly did Mr Key say?

50 comments on “What exactly did Mr Key say? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ianmac 1

   17 October 2008 at 9:49 am

   It will seem to be a small point to Key supporters but it is not. This is a would-be PM, who has to be very reliable. Over a time of 9 years the worst that Helen Clark has been accused of is signing a painting for charity which she did not lie about- admitted freely but not for personal gain. Remember the roar of disapproval over that? This along with Rail shares, not touch Kiwisaver, lies about unemployment, crime etc suggest a dodgy fella. Actually I have been wondering about what John did for a job. What does a money trader actually do? Does he produce a product, invest in an idea or business?
2. Rakaia George 2

   17 October 2008 at 10:00 am

   Over 9 years…yada yada….

   Yet she expects the sheeple to believe that she did not know about the OG donation to Peters at the time it was made….ROFL.
3. Tim Ellis 3

   17 October 2008 at 10:01 am

   I don’t see it as lying. I don’t think many people believe that every policy a party has under MMP is non-negotiable or a bottom line. What I also know is that John Key is very unlikely to have completed coalition negotiations with the Maori Party, or even commenced such negotiations, before the election.
4. higherstandard 4

   17 October 2008 at 10:02 am

   Ianmac

   Quite right because Helen has never lied has she ?

   “At one point Miss Clark made a comment that Mr Key may shout at home but he wouldn’t shout her down.

   Today she said she was not accusing him of yelling at his family.

   “What I meant was he was having a tantrum he was completely out of control trying to shout me down…”

   Most if not all politicians have variously lied, bent the truth and obfuscated – for a good diatribe on the techniques they use I suggest you read this.

   http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=103
5. randal 5

   17 October 2008 at 10:08 am

   howabout that. 4 replies and not one addresses the question of whether john keys lied. well did he?
6. Dancer 6

   17 October 2008 at 10:09 am

   So saying one thing in private and another thing in public is ok behaviour from those who seek to run the country? Wait a minute, isn’t that what happened with English’s plans to sell Kiwibank “Eventually”? Didn’t we find out from Merril Lynch that the Nats had been talking privatisation of ACC before they announced their policy? Didn’t Key mislead Fran Mold over TranzRail? Didn’t Key try to avoid remembering whether he met with Lord Ashcroft? etc etc etc
7. forgetaboutthelastone 7

   17 October 2008 at 10:12 am

   here we go – the old “so what? all politicians lie” defence – straight after the old “i don’t see it as lying and neither does anyone else” defence.
8. randal 8

   17 October 2008 at 10:13 am

   key is an expert on dissimulation. he worked for Bankers trust when they were succesfully sued for writing contracts that could not be understood unless it was in BT’s favour.
9. Felix 9

   17 October 2008 at 10:14 am

   randal,

   Yep but only if you define lying as saying something you know isn’t true.
10. higherstandard 10

    17 October 2008 at 10:14 am

    “So saying one thing in private and another thing in public is ok behaviour from those who seek to run the country?”

    Well can you grab me some more secret taps from Labour inner sanctum meetings because all the indications to date suggest that this is exactly the behaviour we get from politicians.
11. insider 11

    17 October 2008 at 10:16 am

    No he didn’t because he was asked specifically if he there was an agreement about Maori consent (not Maori party). It appears there wasn’t such an agreement.
12. Felix 12

    17 October 2008 at 10:16 am

    Tim you’re a liar.
13. forgetaboutthelastone 13

    17 October 2008 at 10:17 am

    ROFLMAO @ Rakaia George ROFLing
14. Felix 14

    17 October 2008 at 10:19 am

    hs,

    We can still call them out on it though, can’t we?

    We know that shopkeepers expect a certain amount of shoplifting but that doesn’t mean we don’t try to prosecute them when we catch them.
15. Tony Norriss 15

    17 October 2008 at 10:24 am

    Read the article. Here is what he admits to saying:

    “”I’ve certainly acknowledged it is not a bottom line for us.”

    Mr Key continued to say no agreement had been made and that would remain so until after the election on November 8.”

    This being the case, he is quite entitled to say no assurance had been given. All that has been stated by his admission is that the policy is negotiable. This is a huge difference and certainly not an assurance of any kind.

    There are probably a number of areas of policy that are negotiable, but this does not necessarily mean that all these aspects will be conceded in the actual negotiations. All that is being done is flagging areas where there is some flexibility for future discussions.

    So, there is no contradiction with his debate statement whatsoever. The only contradiction is in the minds of those who want to see one.
16. higherstandard 16

    17 October 2008 at 10:27 am

    Felix

    Agreed – the thing that amuses me is that most people are so partisan they think that their team don’t do it.

    Back episodes of Yes Minister/Prime Minister should be screed at 7.00pm on weeknights leading up to every election to remind people of what politics is all about.
17. forgetaboutthelastone 17

    17 October 2008 at 10:38 am

    Tony Norriss:

    that’s a tick for you beside the “i don’t see it as lying and neither does anyone else’ defence.
18. Felix 18

    17 October 2008 at 10:39 am

    “Back episodes of Yes Minister/Prime Minister should be screed at 7.00pm on weeknights leading up to every election to remind people of what politics is all about.”

    That has my vote 😉

    Also The Pretender serves a similar function.
19. Matthew Pilott 19

    17 October 2008 at 10:46 am

    Tony, why do you think Key repeatedly said there was no “formal agreement” in the debate, when that was not the question at all? Weasel words is the term that springs to mind. no one was asking him if he’d signed teh bloody policy away, yet that’s what he was pretending…

    Given that he said there was no assurance, and now he’s saying there was an assurance, there’s only no lie for those who don’t want to see one.

    Tim, no one is talking about formal negitiations. You’re doing exactly what Key did during the debate. It made him look like a liar at the time..perhaps you should consider that.
20. gobsmacked 20

    17 October 2008 at 10:55 am

    Key issues “lie” clarification:

    “It was not a pork pie. It was a pastry containing pig-meat.”
21. Ianmac 21

    17 October 2008 at 11:15 am

    No idea wot this means”ROFLMAO @ Rakaia George ROFLing”

    The bottom line to me is that Key now admits that such discussion did take place but Key had denied it thrice, and accused Sharples of being mistaken and . This is lying! It is no use saying that there was no formal agreement – no one even suggested that there was!
    Does being a money-trader gain useful experience for leading honestly? Actually what does a money trader actually do? Anyone?
22. milo 22

    17 October 2008 at 11:39 am

    Ianmac: denied what thrice? You are putting words in his mouth, and then calling him a liar for them. It’s just pathetic. And the other so-called lies don’t fare much better.

    The argument seems to be that if a hostile audience can interpret a comments by another speaker as not directly backing him, THEN ITS A LIE.

    Well, that’s just pathetic.
23. Ianmac 23

    17 October 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Milo: He denied the Sharples version at least thrice in the Leaders Debate and followed that up in interviews the following day. He blamed Sharples for getting it wrong. Make that at least 4! Knowing that it was wrong is a lie.
24. milo 24

    17 October 2008 at 12:51 pm

    So Ianmac, if there was a formal agreement, what concessions did the Maori party make in return? Can you name them?
25. Ianmac 25

    17 October 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Milo: Where in earth did you get the “formal agreement “from?? No-one has used those words except John Key! And that was to say that there wasn’t one. Duh? The issue is that John repeatedly said that there was no understanding, saying that Sharples was wrong to say so. Remember that Bill English was at the same meeting and has not denied Sharples version. If John knew that it was wrong and that an understanding had been reached, then he was lying. Milo: Do you think that a would-be PM should be honest and reliable?
26. forgetaboutthelastone 26

    17 October 2008 at 1:13 pm

    1 million people saw it with their own eyes – they’re not coming to some conclusion based on second-hand spin from the nz herald or stuff or some long-winded explanation about some or other technicality.

    wether someone is lying or not: people make this sort of judgement all the time – people have a certain instinct about these things – you don’t need a whole lot of background info/spin to inform that judgement.
27. Tim Ellis 27

    17 October 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Matthew said:

    Tim, no one is talking about formal negitiations. You’re doing exactly what Key did during the debate. It made him look like a liar at the time..perhaps you should consider that.

    No I don’t think it made him look like a liar, Matthew. That is your perspective, and I think that’s at the heart of this issue. Most people on the Right think that Helen Clark aided and abetted Winston Peters lying to the public over donations to NZ First. Most people on the Left, presumably, think it wasn’t her business to inquire further. Likewise, I suspect most people on the right think that what John Key is saying has no contradiction, while most people on the left will jump up and scream about it.

    I don’t doubt that you honestly hold your opinion. But it is an entrenched opinion that is formed from your political bias, just as mine is.

    I understand where you’re coming from. I just happen to disagree with your conclusion, just as you happen to disagree with many of my conclusions about the Peters saga and what Helen Clark knew, and whether she should have acted.
28. Matthew Pilott 28

    17 October 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Crikey Tim. there was a pretty big outcry after Clark admitted that she knew about the conflict but didn’t do anything. I’m surprised you’t want to draw such a comparison.

    What stuck in my mind was Key saying unequivocally Sharples had got it wrong, yet only denying a ‘formal agreement’. Sharples never implied there was such a formal agreement, it was a tool (a straw-man) Key used to attempt to avoid the question. However when he said Sharples was wrong, and later admitted he was right, he’d admitted to lying on that point – and also shown the ‘formal agreement’ point to be the straw-man that it was.

    I don’t see a lot of wiggle room in there.
29. Tim Ellis 29

    17 October 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Crikey Tim. there was a pretty big outcry after Clark admitted that she knew about the conflict but didn’t do anything. I’m surprised you’t want to draw such a comparison.

    I distinctly recall, Matthew, plenty of Labour Party sources, and a number of commenters here at the Standard doing plenty of “wriggling” over it, defending Helen Clark’s position. I have no reason to think they did not honestly believe what they were saying.

    What stuck in my mind was Key saying unequivocally Sharples had got it wrong, yet only denying a ‘formal agreement’.

    Key never said that Sharples was lying. He just said that Sharples’ interpretation of the discussion was different to Key’s interpretation. As far as Key was concerned, Sharples’ interpretation was wrong.

    Sharples never implied there was such a formal agreement, it was a tool (a straw-man) Key used to attempt to avoid the question.

    I disagree that it was a straw-man. It is my view that in Key’s mind, nothing is negotiated or agreed before an election. Key regularly sits down with the Maori Party to discuss issues and keep in touch. That doesn’t constitute a negotiation. For Key to have agreed with Sharples’ point would have constituted a negotiation. I don’t think there’s any basis for believing that Key was negotiating with Sharples. As I see it, Sharples was indicating that the Maori seats issue was a bottom-line for the Maori Party, and Key indicated that he understood that it was a bottom-line issue for the Maori Party. Sharples took that indication as an agreement, rather than an understanding of Sharples’ position.

    However when he said Sharples was wrong, and later admitted he was right, he’d admitted to lying on that point

    Where did you get this from? From what I have read, Key didn’t say anything of the sort. He seems to have said later that he admitted to the Maori Party that the Maori seats issue would not be a bottom-line negotiating issue for the National Party. To me that doesn’t look like a concession of the policy at all. It’s not the outcome of a negotiation–it’s just an exploration, before the election, of potential policy compatibility.

    I understand the Labour Party’s interest in beating this up as something much bigger than it is–they are deeply worried that the Maori Party will find their policies are more compatible to National than Labour. But I simply disagree that Key has somehow been caught out lying.
30. travellerev 30

    17 October 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Ianmac,

    John Key started out as a money trader but by the time he moved to Merrill Lynch he did something entirely different albeit linked to the forex trade.

    John Key had become a specialist in the Bonds and Derivatives trade. After the Bankers trust collapsed in 1995 after the Bank had been found guilty of Derivatives fraud John Key was head hunted by Merrill Lynch to become the global head for forex and the European head for Bonds and Derivatives (according to his own website). Watch this video if you want to know what that means.

    According to the interview in the NZ herald of 19 July John Key peddled his toxic junk far and wide.

    Next to that he was an upon invitation only advisor to Alan Greenspan and the privately owned Federal Reserve of New York, right at the time the bonds and Derivatives trade started to bubble up and in 1999 he had two years until he left to make a final killing in the totally unregulated rigged Casino that is selling Bonds and Derivatives to unsuspecting pension funds, Governments and Corporations.

    In other words while the bankers were fully aware that Bonds and Derivatives were a mixture of good and bad loans, good and bad corporate debt or a stable and unstable bag of currencies they sold the bundles of crap as all tripple A rated and they are letting the chips fall were they may because they pocketed the money and when the music stops i.e. when the underlying assets (House mortgages, Corporate loans, Currencies) usually hyped up with an artificial bubble of easy credit collapses those holding the devalued derivatives (as in deriving their value from underlying real world assets) are the suckers. At Bankers Trust they had a term for how much the could rip of their customers. It was ROF (Rip off Factor)

    Not only that, against the money received they started to loan money out again.
    At the time Merrill Lynch finally collapsed they had a leveraged themselves 60:1 that is they loaned 60 fictitious dollars against 1 real dollar. Money out of thin air. (And this is while commercial bank are regulated to have no more than a leverage of 10:1 to prevent bank runs.

    And now all these banks, pension funds, mortgage lenders and insurers are collapsing (today Merrill Lynch wrote down more than 5.6 billion in toxic debt again today)

    You see it’s the speculative (Guesstimates are talking about 1 or 2 quadrillion(1000trillion) of speculative digital “money” sloshing around the worlds financial system) bonds and derivatives trade over the last 21 years that is now imploding and John Key was very much in the centre of it and he may have missed the last 7 years of this fraud fest but make no mistake as early as 2002 Warren Buffet warned already that the Bonds and Derivatives trade was a weapon of mass destruction.

    This didn’t start in the last 2 years this is only the end of 21 years of unmitigated Bankers greed and lies and John Key sharked around with the nastiest of them. The “Smiling Assassin” as he was fondly known by his colleagues made his $ 50 mill by systematically selling crap financial products and lying while he did it.

    All those mom and pop investors who have lost their savings in the financial investment groups in NZ have lost their money because when the real economy of the US began to contract as people were maxed out on their mortgages and credit cards could no longer afford their luxury lifestyle.

    This is when the derivatives business started to come undone. Banks all of a sudden realised that these subprime mortgages , bad corporate debt and collapsing currencies could be anywhere in the financial system and they stopped lending. The financial investment groups in New Zealand could no longer meet their payments and other commitments as a result and bingo all went belly up.

    There is no stopping it, no propping up and no amount of fake fiat currency can save this system. It’s dead, the US economy is no more because only 12% of the GDP comes from actual productive jobs. 33% came from the financial industry with its fake financial products and the rest some 55% of the jobs are in the service sector and that sector from Expensive coffee to take, hospitals, fire fighters police, McDonald hamburgers to furniture shops is entirely dependant on excess money people have to spare. No money not honey. the US economy is a dead man walking and that in turn makes our future extremely bleak too.
    And the only result of giving money to the banks is that they will hoard that too and it will start a hyperinflation that the rest of us will have to cope with.

    Anyway that is what John Key and his banking mates have been up to.
31. Lampie 31

    17 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

    now that should be in the Herald travellerev
32. Felix 32

    17 October 2008 at 2:39 pm

    The comment above from Tim Ellis, translated for those who can’t be bothered wading through the banality:

    “LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA trust key”
33. Ianmac 33

    17 October 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Travellerev: That’s terrific. I have copied onto my own file so I can take time to understand it all.
    I guess that when John described himself on the Leaders Debate, as a “Very Successful Businessman” he was referring to you outline. Hmmm. Do you think your info should get a wider audience?
    You would think that someone who was so good with money, would have knowingly said in the LD: “one in 5 households cannot pay their power bills.” Thats 20% right? Today in the Press the Power people say no. It is about 2% or 1 in 50. Deliberate?
34. Matthew Pilott 34

    17 October 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Tim, most of the ‘wriggling’ I was doing, for example, was pointing out that Clark was party to a private conversation and did not feel like it was within her bounds to release the details of said private conversation.

    Pita Sharples felt no such compulsion, and that’s clearly not a defence Key can use, since Sharples revealed the content of the discussion on national tv!

    C’mon, man, you say it’s not a straw-man but do nothing in that para to prove it’s not. No one was talking about a formal agreement. No one except Key. Key made up this concept that there wasn’t a formal agreement to hide that he’d given up the goose informally – saying one thing in private and another in public.

    He did, though, say that Sharples was mistaken – wasn’t it pretty much in those words? I haven’t a transcript of the debate handy, but I thought it was fairly close to that. The last question was very direct, as was the answer. He’s later conceeded that he was mistaken, not Sharples – that it was not a bottom line.

    Tim: “As I see it, Sharples was indicating that the Maori seats issue was a bottom-line for the Maori Party, and Key indicated that he understood that it was a bottom-line issue for the Maori Party. Sharples took that indication as an agreement, rather than an understanding of Sharples’ position.”

    Key: “He said Dr Sharples had raised the issue with him many times.

    “I’ve certainly acknowledged it is not a bottom line for us.”

    All along Sharples was saying the above – and Key was implying that Sharples was wrong, confused, mistaken, whatever. Key’s words above show that to be a lie, and that your interpretation isn’t correct.

    The alternative, if you want to take a generous view, is that Key realises he’s been outplayed, and is accepting Sharple’s point of view (that key conceded it wasn’t a bottom line – that those seats won’t go ’till Maori agree) in public to avoid pissing Sharples off any more than he probably has. Key is losing face, but perhaps a good tactical move, if that’s what he’s doing, to be nice to the MP.

    I wouldn’t give Key that much credit though, if he was smart enough to figure that extricating himself from the situation in such a fashion would be a good move, he wouldn’t have got himself sucked into it in the first place.
35. Matthew Pilott 35

    17 October 2008 at 2:45 pm

    “Sharple’s”

    An outrage.

    I’m so, so very sorry to you all. Where is edit when I need you!
36. Lampie 36

    17 October 2008 at 2:56 pm

    guess that when John described himself on the Leaders Debate, as a “Very Successful Businessman’ he was referring to you outline. Hmmm. Do you think your info should get a wider audience?

    yes yes yes yes yes yes yes hey Audrey from Herald, USE THIS!!!!!!!!!!
37. Ianmac 37

    17 October 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Felix: I guess the lalala stuff from Tim is understandable as a reaction to your idol maybe having feet of clay. And he has put up a reasonable attempt at a defence. Better than some of the mindless screaming on other blogs. Cheers
38. Lampie 38

    17 October 2008 at 3:01 pm

    “Sharple’s’

    An outrage.

    I’m so, so very sorry to you all. Where is edit when I need you!

    That’s like Key saying “Helen Key” during the debate, don’t tell me you all missed that!!!!
39. Steve Pierson 39

    17 October 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Lampie. I know the time you are talking about.. said ‘Helen Clark’ but ‘Clark’ sounded a lot like ‘Key’ with his loose pronounciation and talking over Clark.. in fact one of the people I was watching with was sure he had said Key too but checked it out and it was definitely ‘Clark’. rest assured, we would have been mocking him for days if he had got that wrong.
40. Matthew Pilott 40

    17 October 2008 at 3:10 pm

    “we would have been mocking him for days if he had got that wrong.”

    So would she – she goes by Miss Clark, not Mrs Davis, so imagine the outrage (A certain bronwyn (sic?) would also be less than impressed). I thought it was Helen key too, lampie.
41. Lampie 41

    17 October 2008 at 3:14 pm

    damn, bugger, slippery little worm isn’t he. Even my wife laughed too at it. Laughed at the stupid phone poll as well, what a crock of shit that was.
42. forgetaboutthelastone 42

    17 October 2008 at 3:24 pm

    just goes to show what the worm was for – so the journos know who ‘won’ without having to analyse the actual debate in any depth. They replaced it with the phone poll – same thing but it least it didn’t distract during the debate.
43. Ianmac 43

    17 October 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Power Bills Apology: Sorry. Steve checked it out and Key was meant that 1 in 5 had bills in general in default and not just the power bill.
    Although that is still a very high number. Where would you get that figure from. 1 in 5. Wow!
44. Tim Ellis 44

    17 October 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Matthew said:

    C’mon, man, you say it’s not a straw-man but do nothing in that para to prove it’s not. No one was talking about a formal agreement. No one except Key. Key made up this concept that there wasn’t a formal agreement to hide that he’d given up the goose informally – saying one thing in private and another in public.

    No, I don’t agree. It would have been a straw man if Key had been splitting hairs about whether the agreement was a formal one or otherwise. I’m saying there wasn’t an agreement at all. Key’s view is that he did not concede the point to Sharples. He just agreed that it was Sharples’ bottom-line position on the Maori seats.

    If I’m in a negotiation with you, Matthew, (and Key wasn’t in a negotiation with Sharples), then one of the first things we do is work out what respective bottom-line positions are. Just because I happen to understand what your bottom line is, doesn’t mean that I’ve given that away to you. If we were negotiating, then I’d want something in return for you getting your bottom line through. Key spent all his commercial career negotiating deals. Do you really think he would freely give up one of the key bargaining chips to the Maori Party before the election, with nothing in return?

    He did, though, say that Sharples was mistaken – wasn’t it pretty much in those words?

    Yes that’s right, he did. He said that Sharples was mistaken that Key had agreed to forego the Maori seats abolition. Now, Sharples may have interpreted Key’s understanding that it was the Maori Party’s bottom-line, but that doesn’t mean Key actually gave it up.

    He’s later conceeded that he was mistaken, not Sharples – that it was not a bottom line.

    I don’t think Key has conceded that at all. As I understand it, Key has said he understood that the issue was a bottom line for Sharples, and said it probably won’t be a bottom-line for National. None of that information is actually earth-shattering news. Not every policy that main political parties announce are bottom lines–otherwise they’d never conclude coalition negotiations with anyone.
45. Lampie 45

    17 October 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Hey SP, what you make of Mr Dunne now? Think he wants to side with the Naz… Nats??? My theory is he does and will miss out if Labour wins and be replaced with the Maori party

    Herald article

    What’s your view?
46. Felix 46

    17 October 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Ianmac,
    Not sure what you mean about my idol “maybe having feet of clay”. Are we talking about Gary Newman?

    As for Tim putting up “a reasonable attempt at a defence”, you haven’t read his comment closely enough. That’s why I translated it for you. Cheers yourself.
47. travellerev 47

    17 October 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Hi Felix,

    I think Ianmac meant John Key being Tim Ellis’s hero and having clay feet. LOL.
48. Matthew Pilott 48

    17 October 2008 at 9:01 pm

    “He just agreed that it was Sharples’ bottom-line position on the Maori seats.

    No he didn’t. I reckon this was pretty clear. Read Key’s comment again:

    The Herald comment:” He said Dr Sharples had raised the issue with him many times.”

    Key’s quote: “I’ve certainly acknowledged it is not a bottom line for us.”

    I’m not sure how you’ve been able to read that as Key agreeing it was Sharples’ position on the issue. Key is saying it’s not the Nat’s bottom line (the Nats being ‘us’ in Key’s comment), nothing on whether it’s Sharples’ bottom line.

    The straw man: Key is making up an argument about it being a formal agreement. No one was saying that at all. They were just asking whether Key had agreed that dropping Maori seats was not a bottom line, or at least said that in private to Sharples.

    Seems to be a classic example of a straw man argument. He gets asked about whether he’s made the concession in private – nothing formal though. Key replies, “no, there’s no formal agreement”. The ‘formal agreement’ meets every test you can apply about being a straw-man argument.

    I’d say more on your comment but I’m not exactly compos mentis! Will get back to you tomorrow.
49. Pascal's bookie 49

    17 October 2008 at 9:33 pm

    As I understand it, Key has said he understood that the issue was a bottom line for Sharples, and said it probably won’t be a bottom-line for National.

    fergawdsake. National don’t even know where their bottom lines are at. That’s the defence. hahaha.

    And this nonsense about not being in negotiations should stop. Of course they were negotiating. There isn’t a little bell that rings that signals that negotiations are starting now.

    One side was saying “this is a bottom line. Are we still talking?”

    Other side says “yeah, we’re still talking”.

    That’s negotiating Tim.

    The fact that they are negotiating what a hypothetical future deal’s baseline will be, doesn’t change the fact that side A told side B that in that future negotiation side B’s bottom line on X was doable.

    That’s an agreement that X would be a part of any deal they might come to. Which is what Key lied about.

    He lied about it because the National’s policy on the Maori seats is just a pander to the “treaty grievance train” mob that Brash hoovered up at Orewa1, and he still wants their votes.

    The fact that getting rid of the Maori seats will get rid of the tories overhang problem is just a bonus, (and no longer necessary if the National Party can form a working relationship with the maori Party).

    The negotiations, stripped of all the diplomatic speak :

    NP: We have a policy to get rid of the Maori seats, but we could ditch that if you support us. ( don’t support us and….)

    mP: Glad to hear that, we’ll consider working with you if you throw the rednecks under the bus and recognise that Maori are treaty partners.

    Result: Tory flounder impression.
50. travellerev 50

    18 October 2008 at 7:14 am

    Hi lampie and Ianmac,

    Yes, I think that this information should be in the public domain but until recently people very much thought that John Key was a nice guy and most people also thought that Wall street was a long way away from New Zealand and that a little sub prime crisis with a couple of silly banks lending money to people unable to pay their loans back was just a glitch in the financial world which would come to pass like all others and we would happily go back to “economic growth”. Now that finance companies called the “shadow banking world” and very much an unregulated wild west world, worldwide are collapsing and the government has had to step in with a 150 billion and counting of taxpayers money (make no mistake, that money will be added to the national debt and you and me and every man woman an child will be paying for this and the compounded interest for generations to come if we don’t the Federal Reserve system) to prop up the international Federal Reserve system people are waking up and are more willing to take a second look.

    If you want to know about the origins of our banking system watch the “money masters” and if you want to know how money is generated out of thin air by those same money masters than watch “Money as debt” and also watch the “Creature form Jekyll Island” about the secrecy surrounding the origins of the Federal Reserve of New York and you will know what kind of masters John Key served and judging by the fact that he is hell bound on borrowing money oversees and the fact that Merrill Lynch wants to privatise the NZ ACC he is still very much a foot soldier of the Wall street and London banksters.

    I say foot soldier because frankly to them $50 million is chomp change, they get more in quarterly bonuses.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS