Cunt Key

[Skyryder]

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.


John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. He stands up in Parliament and pontificates on Clarke’s dishonesty in respect to the Owens/Peters loan and yet his lack of integrity is demonstrated by his purchase of 50,000 shares of Tranz Rail in Keys own name, and get this, while at the same time criticizing the Labour Government for wanting to buy back the Rail. Keys lame excuse on TV news that no one 'asked' and he lost money in no way excuses the fact that Keys purchase of the shares was too profit. Too profit while at the same time oppose Labour's buy back of the rail has got to be one of the most cynical and unethical actions I have ever witnessed in all my time of political activity. I’ve seen some shockers but this without exception beats all.



Skyryder.

[devnull]

:baby:

So MP's shouldn't buy shares now?

Why no protesting about Chris Carter promoting a "gays only" scholarship programme in secondary schools? Gone are the days of earning scholarships with academic excellence I see...

And not so much as a murmer regarding Clark coming out and saying Winnie stays, regardless of whether he's found guilty or not...

Hmmm....

[Drum]

I don't see it as cynical or unethical.

He may not have believed it was a good idea politically, but also saw that he could make a profit out of it. That's the kind of savvy I want the leader of the country to have.

If he used his own name to buy the shares then how is it unethical? I'm sure he could've used a trust to hide his purchase if he wanted.

[awayatc]

With the amount of C*nts residing there, one could be excused thinking the beehive is a Bordello.....

However I rather have a c*nt in charge that tries to make profit,
then one that gives our money away in hand-out schemes.....

:scooter:

[maybe]

I was brought up if you have nothing nice to say say nothing at all

[pete376403]

She murmurred this "She did not believe there would be anything in the report that would justify Mr Peters being reinstated to his portfolios, Miss Clark said...

...This means it is likely Mr Peters will remain in political limbo until the election, though he will retain the benefits of office."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4701503a6160.html

[Skyryder]

If you have any sort of ethics and integrity you do not profit from that which you oppose. Pretty simple realy. I think even a baboon could understand that.


Skyryder

[Bullitt]

I wasnt aware he held them as late as when he was making those comments. But irrespective of that how is it a bad thing? Its not like his comments would have made any difference and everyone buying and selling in that market was, or at least thought they were, fully informed, just ;ioke any other trade. Its not like he stole the money of beneficiaries to buy the shares.

Anyway what has this got to do with recent events at all other than Liarbore is doing particularly badly at the moment?

[Scouse]

Why no protesting about Chris Carter promoting a "gays only" scholarship programme in secondary schools? Gone are the days of earning scholarships with academic excellence I see...Wadday mean he's training them to become Proffesors of Proctology

[Drum]

I think I detect the mild, yet growing, panic of a punter who suspects they have backed the wrong pony!

[T.W.R]

What'd ya expect :msn-wink: he was an equities trader, one of the lowest forms of business. A successful business man as one person here said :spanking: profiteering of others misfortune for his own gain, a leopard never changes it's spots so once a leech always a leech.

[JimO]

key is a better man than helen

[Bullitt]

I wasnt aware he held them as late as when he was making those comments. But irrespective of that how is it a bad thing? Its not like his comments would have made any difference and everyone buying and selling in that market was, or at least thought they were, fully informed, just ;ioke any other trade. Its not like he stole the money of beneficiaries to buy the shares.

Anyway what has this got to do with recent events at all other than Liarbore is doing particularly badly at the moment?

Ok I see Liarbore has raised this as a new issue. Completley coincidental it was on the same evening as the Priviledges Committee report which was so damning for Liarbore and Winston First...

Im still amazed Liarbore is getting more than about 5% of the vote. Guess theres always people that will vote for them because they and their family always have irrespective of what they're doing to the country.

[98tls]

Thieves,bludgers and a dictator..........sad but the fact that like sheep once again we will wear the ground bare in an effort to ensure they have a few chuckles for a bit.

[awayatc]

:baby:

Chris Carter promoting a "gays only" scholarship programme in secondary schools?




Well ...The arseholes that run this country want to help people on their way that have more indept knowledge about them....

:scooter:

[Jackal]

Me thinks he has kept quiet due to the fact he might be a bit red faced he lost all that money on those shares. Since he has portrayed to everyone he is a savy business man!

[Lias]

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.


John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. He stands up in Parliament and pontificates on Clarke’s dishonesty in respect to the Owens/Peters loan and yet his lack of integrity is demonstrated by his purchase of 50,000 shares of Tranz Rail in Keys own name, and get this, while at the same time criticizing the Labour Government for wanting to buy back the Rail. Keys lame excuse on TV news that no one 'asked' and he lost money in no way excuses the fact that Keys purchase of the shares was too profit. Too profit while at the same time oppose Labour's buy back of the rail has got to be one of the most cynical and unethical actions I have ever witnessed in all my time of political activity. I’ve seen some shockers but this without exception beats all.



Skyryder.

I think your confused over what actually happened there, but given the strength of your rant I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

That aside, even if he robs the country blind though I'll still take him over Comrade Clarke. I'd rather live in a financially bankrupt country than a morally bankrupt one, and thats what we have now!

[T.W.R]

That aside, even if he robs the country blind though I'll still take him over Comrade Clarke. I'd rather live in a financially bankrupt country than a morally bankrupt one, and thats what we have now!

:laugh: yeah the Yanks thought that too about Clinton as well and put peanut brain in the whitehouse :msn-wink: look where they are now and their slowly taking everyone else with them :doh:

[chucky19]

It's the nature of our political system that the opposition lambasts anything that the goverment come up with - except payrises for themselves that is.

Helen won't dump on Winnie - he knows way too much.

[CookMySock]

looking at the topic, I thought you meant "credit card"

[Deano]

Say what you like about Key, there is no way in hell Helen is getting my vote.

9 years is long enough to make a change and look at the state of the country.

Nanny state be damned.

[rainman]

Someone in the paper a few weeks ago said something along the lines of " The only time a politician is telling the truth is when he's accusing one of his colleagues of lying".

Best of luck Skyryder. Don't think you'll convince the "rugged individualists" around here to hold any vaguely negative views of Key, but have fun trying...

[rainman]

I'd rather live in a financially bankrupt country than a morally bankrupt one, and thats what we have now!

Or you could go live in the USA and get both!

[Kiwi Graham]

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.


John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. He stands up in Parliament and pontificates on Clarke’s dishonesty in respect to the Owens/Peters loan and yet his lack of integrity is demonstrated by his purchase of 50,000 shares of Tranz Rail in Keys own name, and get this, while at the same time criticizing the Labour Government for wanting to buy back the Rail. Keys lame excuse on TV news that no one 'asked' and he lost money in no way excuses the fact that Keys purchase of the shares was too profit. Too profit while at the same time oppose Labour's buy back of the rail has got to be one of the most cynical and unethical actions I have ever witnessed in all my time of political activity. I’ve seen some shockers but this without exception beats all.



Skyryder.

Blimey, next you'll be saying all polititions are out on there own power trip and what they can get out of it for themselves, forget the content of part of there phone calls.

Rodney for president...........go hard twinkle toe's.

[Skyryder]

Ok I see Liarbore has raised this as a new issue. Completley coincidental it was on the same evening as the Priviledges Committee report which was so damning for Liarbore and Winston First...

Im still amazed Liarbore is getting more than about 5% of the vote. Guess theres always people that will vote for them because they and their family always have irrespective of what they're doing to the country.


It's politics Bullit. Yes Labour's timing for this is perfect. Labour's revelations on Keys share trading practices limits his ability to jump on the moral high ground. And I stress the word 'limit.' Keys lack of integrity in failing to declare his interest in Tranz Rail will limit him and National the ability to portray themselves as honest.

Keys actions give Labour an ‘out.’ I’m not going to make any predictions on this other than to say there may be some new faces going after him. John Key has made an enormous blunder and Labour will milk it for all it's worth.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4701760a6160.html

Skyryder

[Ocean1]

If you have any sort of ethics and integrity you do not profit from that which you oppose. Pretty simple realy. I think even a baboon could understand that.


Skyryder

What he opposed was the government buying Toll's assets. Damn right, hard to imagine a more fiscally unsupportable waste of taxpayer's money.

As a potential private investment however it was a good punt. If the taxpayer hadn't been so outrageously generous Toll stocks stood to increase in proprtion to the nescessary ramp-up in tech services only they were in a position to offer.

They're still in that position, however it's now unlikely the taxpayer can afford to avail themselves of them.

No double standards I can see from Key there, when you totally fuck a market sector all common sense goes out the proverbial window.

[Big Dave]

looking at the topic, I thought you meant "credit card"

Indeed. I was thinking 100' yacht and a crate of Bollinger.

[Lias]

Best of luck Skyryder. Don't think you'll convince the "rugged individualists" around here to hold any vaguely negative views of Key, but have fun trying...

I don't actually like Key all that much, he's FAR too centrist for my liking, and I have a genetic predisposition to not like jewish moneylenders. I'd much rather we still had Brash. Or better yet Muldoon.. Or even better yet Muldoon and Margaret Thatchers lovechild.. that'd get my vote for emperor of NZ.

[rainman]

I don't actually like Key all that much, he's FAR too centrist for my liking, and I have a genetic predisposition to not like jewish moneylenders. I'd much rather we still had Brash. Or better yet Muldoon.. Or even better yet Muldoon and Margaret Thatchers lovechild.. that'd get my vote for emperor of NZ.


Ewwwwwwwwwww.

[Skyryder]

What he opposed was the government buying Toll's assets. Damn right, hard to imagine a more fiscally unsupportable waste of taxpayer's money.

As a potential private investment however it was a good punt. If the taxpayer hadn't been so outrageously generous Toll stocks stood to increase in proprtion to the nescessary ramp-up in tech services only they were in a position to offer.

They're still in that position, however it's now unlikely the taxpayer can afford to avail themselves of them.

No double standards I can see from Key there, when you totally fuck a market sector all common sense goes out the proverbial window.


New Zealand buisness was in full support of the buy back. That's the only reason Labour went for it. Shit you don't think for one minute this had anything to do with Sunday trains rides down to the beach for a picnic with mum dad the kids etc.

If you can not see the double standards then I can not in way offer further furher comments on Keys actions. Key himself was well aware of his gaffe by his embarressment on TV when questioned by the female journo. He's fucked it and knows it.


Skyryder

[325rocket]

looking at the topic, I thought you meant "credit card"

i thought he was talking about something for one of these ...

[Oakie]

What'd ya expect :msn-wink: he was an equities trader, one of the lowest forms of business. A successful business man as one person here said :spanking: profiteering of others misfortune for his own gain, a leopard never changes it's spots so once a leech always a leech.

He bought and sold shares in this case. In effect he leant money to a company to help them operate, buy assets, expand ... whatever. In return for that he made money when the value of the company went up and he sold his portion. There is also a risk that the value of the company may go down despite your investment. I believe that that was what actually happened and Mr Key finished up loosing money on part of his investment. Rather than "profiteering of (sic) others misfortune" he received a gain or loss in his investment based on the quality of the managment of the business he invested in.

[Bullitt]

Key himself was well aware of his gaffe by his embarressment on TV when questioned by the female journo. He's fucked it and knows it.

Politicans dont like soundbites showing they said something that turned out to be wrong irrespective of whether theres any intent behind it. Being embarassed by that dont prove alot.

Plus Key has a history of apoligising when he or his party havnt done anything wrong so on that score it don't surprise me either.

Better to have that much money you forget quite how much youve got than to be caught telling blatant lies then smearing reputable people to try cover it up.

[Ocean1]

New Zealand buisness was in full support of the buy back. That's the only reason Labour went for it.

Indeed? They kept that bloody quite.

Quieter even than the deal itself.

Dude, you're disturbingly strident, play the facts rather than the personalities eh? The rail asset purchase was a stunningly bad idea, the fact is those assets have an effective market value of zero. The rolling stock is all fucked and the repair bill far exceeds it's book value let alone it's market value.

Toll rail had a heads-of-agreement with Hellen to supply maintenance and upgrade services worth more than the asset value BEFORE the sale was signed off. Does that make any sort of business sense? Only if your objective was to nationalise the asset at any cost. The good ship NZR will stagger on long enough for the Aussies to drain the last of the tax funded cashflow and then whither.

Key's shares had some value while the asset was privately owned, now they don't, it's that simple. He won't be the only one regreting Helen's largess I promise.

[mv.senna]

OMG!!! a politician lied/witheld the truth!! shock, horror!! :devil2:

While, fundamentally I agree with your sentiments Skyryder, unfortunately it seems that a pre-requisite of being a politician is to be able to do a "Houdini" with the truth...Winnie the pooh being case n point...n Keys is no different...

whaddaya do? they're all as bad as each other aren't they? I think if Joe Public weren't so desperate for a change of govt, Keys probably would be struggling a lot more in the polls than he is now...it seems that every time those national guys get a chance to open their mouths in a tv interview - they promptly insert both feet!! :doh:

i for one am hoping Te Radar will step up as a candidate for the coming election...he seems to be doing an ok job learning to be living self sustainably, and he certainly demonstrated how to handle a building inspector affably...I reckon he'd go well interacting with other presidents etc...at least everyone wd have a laugh...:niceone:

[Skyryder]

:laugh: yeah the Yanks thought that too about Clinton as well and put peanut brain in the whitehouse :msn-wink: look where they are now and their slowly taking everyone else with them :doh:

Right on

T.W.R. American banks go bust and it costs us. A few weeks back I was at some socialy 'upbeat party' where usually the topic of conversations runs along the lines of how much is going into the new property or what the current fashion is in Morracco, Greece etc. Anyways I get chatting to this guy who's singing the praises of the free market etc and I pop this phase 'Private Profit and Public Losses' and ask him what it means. Well if looks could kill...............:girlfight: I never did get an answer.
Skyryder

[Manxman]

That aside, even if he robs the country blind though I'll still take him over Comrade Clarke. I'd rather live in a financially bankrupt country than a morally bankrupt one, and thats what we have now!

There's a lot of common sense in this statement.

[Timber020]

I like the interveiw with him, is funny to see an adult squirm like a 5 year old caught after eating all the chocolate biscuits. You can see it on his face, you can tell hes not someone whose in the habit of being caught out in such a way.

"Fifty thousand at the maximum point. Sometimes 25,000, sometimes 50,000," he said.


He was asked did he personally buy 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in 2005 and sell them five weeks later.

"Oh look actually maybe 100,000 from memory, yes. Sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000 yep," he replied.

It was put to him that that is an issue he should be clear about.

"Well, sorry, yeah, it was 100,000 in total," he said.


Great bit of video, http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2095923

[Swoop]

And not so much as a murmer regarding Clark coming out and saying Winnie stays, regardless of whether he's found guilty or not...
I believe the words Der Furhrer used were "not guilty enough"...
So now she is changing the laws of the land. Guilty or not guilty. Simple.

Do I now have the right to apply "her"(term applied loosely here) standards when I'm on the jury again?
"Sorry Mr Judge, the accused might have been found speeding, red handed by Mr Plod, but this is not enough guilt I'm afraid. Set him free!":rolleyes:

[pete376403]

Right on

T.W.R. American banks go bust and it costs us. A few weeks back I was at some socialy 'upbeat party' where usually the topic of conversations runs along the lines of how much is going into the new property or what the current fashion is in Morracco, Greece etc. Anyways I get chatting to this guy who's singing the praises of the free market etc and I pop this phase 'Private Profit and Public Losses' and ask him what it means. Well if looks could kill...............:girlfight: I never did get an answer.
Skyryder
Is it not ironic? In the worlds largest communist state, pure capitalism is displayed by the milk traders - profit without any regard for consequences, bulk up the watered down milk with melamine (too bad that it's poison, but) meanwhile the administration of the home of free market capitalism takes a decidedly socialist approach to rescuing the banks and money traders.

Incidentally the company that John Key practised his money market skills has come very close to going down the tubes and was snapped up in a fire sale by Bank of America. Maybe going for the short term gain without regard for the long term wouldn't work for New Zealand any more than it worked for Merrill Lynch.

[Skyryder]

Indeed? They kept that bloody quite.

Quieter even than the deal itself.

Dude, you're disturbingly strident, play the facts rather than the personalities eh? The rail asset purchase was a stunningly bad idea, the fact is those assets have an effective market value of zero. The rolling stock is all fucked and the repair bill far exceeds it's book value let alone it's market value.

Toll rail had a heads-of-agreement with Hellen to supply maintenance and upgrade services worth more than the asset value BEFORE the sale was signed off. Does that make any sort of business sense? Only if your objective was to nationalise the asset at any cost. The good ship NZR will stagger on long enough for the Aussies to drain the last of the tax funded cashflow and then whither.


Key's shares had some value while the asset was privately owned, now they don't, it's that simple. He won't be the only one regreting Helen's largess I promise.


This was on TV One News tonight. and is from

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4701760a6160.html

The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.

Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key told One News his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003. (This is a deliberate lie)

But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.

"Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep," he said.

"Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total." Well at least he apologised for what lying or getting caught for lying.

Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned. (end quote)

Maybe the reason he was not questioned is that he said that he had no more that 30,000 shares. His word was taken as the truth as no one had any reason to doubt him. So in effect he is blaming others for believing that he was telling the truth. The man's a cunt. No other word for him.

Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.

Is this thread a Labour Party troll?

[Manxman]

Keys actions give Labour an ‘out.’ I’m not going to make any predictions on this other than to say there may be some new faces going after him. John Key has made an enormous blunder and Labour will milk it for all it's worth.Skyryder

Ya think it's going to stick??? If this thread is anything to go by, even if John Key clubs seals for fun at the weekends, he's still gonna cruise in.

Don'tchya geddit Sky? People are sick & tired of a semi-commie/socialist/liberal government who, instead of creating frameworks that encourage people to get on, try to pull achievers down to the lowest common denominator. I got news for ya Helen, not everyone is equal...

Michael Cullen now displays breathtaking arrogance of a three term minister who can't see the wood for the trees. Shame really, I quite liked him to start with.

Helen ain't no ethical saint either (signing paintings that weren't hers; not noticing that the car she was travelling in was clocking 180kph...you're sh*tting me, right Helen?; placing herself one-step-removed from any degree of real accountability for pretty much anything, giving herself the ability to pontificate if someone screws up, but take all the glory when it goes good).

That's the world we live in now - and it ain't that good. Time for the pendulum to start swinging back t'other way. Bring back morals, values, responsibility, common sense and the incentive (not handout) for me to achieve - you win my vote.

[Manxman]

Let's put this thread title in a relative context:
John Key = Cnut
Helen Clark = Cnuter

[rainman]

Is it not ironic? In the worlds largest communist state, pure capitalism is displayed by the milk traders - profit without any regard for consequences, bulk up the watered down milk with melamine (too bad that it's poison, but) meanwhile the administration of the home of free market capitalism takes a decidedly socialist approach to rescuing the banks and money traders.

I think it would be bloody hilarious if it wasn't so serious. The bit I particularly love is that those that defend the free market to their final breath, and decry the evil socialist, nay kommunist regime that we apparently suffer under, are strangely silent about the recent efforts of Messrs Paulson and Bernanke.

As has been observed about the interwebs, Karl Marx must be chortling in his grave.

[xwhatsit]

People are sick & tired of a semi-commie/socialist/liberal government
I don't think those words mean what you think they do :laugh:

Anyway, I'm not! Long live the left-of-centre!

[MisterD]

What a fricken beat-up, Fran Mold looked like she was wetting her knickers running Liarbour's attack lines. Our mainstream media wouldn't know journalistic integrity if it smacked them in the face. I hope National sell TVNZ to Murdoch...that'll give those lefty twats a shake-up and a half.

We've got a pretty clear trail now that points to a $40,000 gift from the Vela family to Peters in return for him ramming pro-racing policy through against treasury advice...comparing that to a junior minister (at the time) asking public questions about the railways is just stupid mis-direction. Even Cullen admitted "this is not insider trading". Any buy/sell decisions were made on publicly available information.

[Katman]

looking at the topic, I thought you meant "credit card"

I thought he was having trouble getting his steering unlocked.

[ManDownUnder]

John Key ...

You need to put your name, home address etc at the bottom of that.

Strong words, but the most hypocritical thing you've seen in politics? Caphill's "don't have sex outside marriage" comes to mind, Cullen's "Investors aren't allowed to invest beyond our shores" would be another. My all time regular favourite (self serving more than hypocritical I guess) is the ramming through of parliamentary pay rises under the cloak of night, under urgency... every time!

Dude there's plenty of things out there like that and to be honest - Key risking his own money and him risking the nations money on something are two entirely different propositions. He's a made man - he can afford the high risk bets (which he lost in this case) - I don't mind him (or Mizz Clark) doing what the hell they like with their own money... it'd be a tad hypocritical of me to say they can't - when i want them to say I can.

[Swoop]

... a Labour Party troll?
That really describes the Prime Minister quite well.

[Tank]

ok - so Key made a whoopsie. Compare that with Clarke and Winny.

People are willing to hang Key on what is a small point. Yet are willing to put up with the Clarke and Winny show - people who treat the public with contempt, and believe they are above the law.

Sorry guy - I just cannot see how anyone can believe anything they say at the moment.

Remember - Labour look like they have NO change of getting into power without NZ First - and thats led by a man who will lie to parliament - this is now a fact.

and Helen is so desperate for him that despite this she still clings onto him for her own good.

I bet she will still stand by him when the SFO find him guilty as well.

Me thinks Winny has some good dirt on Helen - or her husband :rolleyes: Wasn't he on holiday in the US recently?

[Skyryder]

You need to put your name, home address etc at the bottom of that.

Strong words, but the most hypocritical thing you've seen in politics? Caphill's "don't have sex outside marriage" comes to mind, Cullen's "Investors aren't allowed to invest beyond our shores" would be another. My all time regular favourite (self serving more than hypocritical I guess) is the ramming through of parliamentary pay rises under the cloak of night, under urgency... every time!

Dude there's plenty of things out there like that and to be honest - Key risking his own money and him risking the nations money on something are two entirely different propositions. He's a made man - he can afford the high risk bets (which he lost in this case) - I don't mind him (or Mizz Clark) doing what the hell they like with their own money... it'd be a tad hypocritical of me to say they can't - when i want them to say I can.


Capell's was a criminal offence where as Keys was not although I agree with your sentiment on Capell.

Key's hyprocrosy is straight political and that's not taking into account any possible breaches of Parliment through lying.

Key's sin is that he was slagging Clarke by keeping quet on her knowledge of Peter's 'gift' from Glen while at the same time 'misleading' Parliment on the amount of shares that he held in Tranz Rail. On top of that to justify his silence on this he claims no one asked how many he held.
As I said in an earlier post Parliment and the country took his word on this and now he blames those that took his word for not asking. Hypocracy is too light a word for this areshole but cunt is about right, and its not a word that I use lightly.




Skyryder

[Pwalo]

FWIW I think you will find that MPs were not required to state their financial interests before 2005. This apparently relates to 2003, and appears to be nothing more than a red herring to distract form the melodrama that is Winston Peters.

Oh and that pesky ETS, smacking law debacle, etc

[Tank]

Key made the following statement:

• I never personally owned shares in Tranzrail. My family trust did, and initially purchased Tranzrail shares prior to me entering Parliament.
• My broker managed the details of the trust’s portfolio, reporting to a solicitor acting as an independent trustee of the family trust, and was able to act without reference to me personally.
• In early June 2003 I saw that Tranzrail was going to be a political issue, and instructed that the shares be sold. The parcel as a whole was sold at a loss.
• My recollection is that I instructed the sale prior to the 11 June select committee meeting. Nevertheless, I now believe I should have instructed their sale earlier.
• I didn’t intend to mislead in regards to the number of shares the family trust owned. The trust owned different parcels on different dates, and the focus had been on a 30,000 share parcel which was the subject of a Labour Party allegation.
• I didn’t release details of those shareholdings at that time. In hindsight I should have, and I am doing so now.


So he owns up he could have done a better job at managing this and fronts up with all the facts. No bullshit - no bluster.

Would Helen and Winnie have done the same ? Given their actions of late - I think its clear that they wouldnt have.

[Winston001]

Lets have some clarity here:

John Key bought and sold Tranzrail shares, the last transaction being in June 2003, when he sold out. He lost money on the transactions.

In June 2003 the Labour Government announced they would buy into Tranzrail - which is why Key sold out, to avoid exactly the misinformed criticism he's receiving now. He didn't want to hold shares which were subject to political influence.

The Government withdrew and Toll bid instead. By December Toll had achieved ownership with the help of the Government.

A canny sharetrader would have been in and out of both Toll and Tranzrail possibly weekly as the share prices moved around over that 5 month period. Bear in mind that RailAmerica had also bid and there were rumours of other buyers.

If Key was the clever sneaky person Cullen is trying to pretend, he'd have been all over this to make a $. He wasn't - and even Cullen admits there was no insider trading.

[T.W.R]

melodrama that is Winston Peters.



:clap: Oh and if everyone would like to clear their memories, where did he start, who was his mentor :rolleyes:

Thats right he started with National he was trained in his dark arts by the best of the bunch old Muldoon :slap:

[portokiwi]

:crybaby: But who do we vote fror????:eek5:

[MisterD]

So he owns up he could have done a better job at managing this and fronts up with all the facts. No bullshit - no bluster.


All the facts to the extent that he's made a letter from his broker and the share contracts themselves available online - Kiwiblog has the links.

Remember that at the time there was no register of pecuniary interests for MP's and all the share holdings were a matter of public record as well...so the whole "misleading parliament" thing is a pile of :bs:.

[Winston001]

Further clarity:

Key was silly to trade Tranzrail when he held a Shadow Portfolio which included rail. I think it was naivety, particularly as he lost money.

Politicians have to be above any hint of undue influence and insider knowledge. Winston Peters take note :argue:

Labour's point - and it is valid - is that Key was in a position as a Parliamentarian and Shadow Minister to gain insider knowledge. MPs see a lot of stuff we don't. Ok, the knowledge might only be a couple of hours ahead of the public, but you can make (or avoid losing) a lot of money in 2 hours.

Whatever, the dishonesty and hipocracy of Peters makes everything else pale into insignificance. :Pokey:

[SPman]

" We have Key intensely questioning Cullen in a select committee meeting on the deal to buy back the track, when he has 50,000 shares lurking in the background, and other committee members have recused themselves for financial reasons. And we have Key increasing his stake, then pumping the stock in his MP's newsletter without disclosing that he had an interest, and doubling his money as a result. This is coming awfully close to using Parliamentary resources to run a pump and dump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump) scam, and it shows at the minimum a complete inability to make the necessary distinction between public and private business. It seems Key was unable to check his wall St money-man instincts at the door when elected to public office, and just kept on wheeling and dealing. (And remember, all of this was wrong by Key's own standards. In October 2003, during the debate on Parliament's register of pecuniary interests, he said:

It might be a bit uncomfortable, but if I am a shareholder of Tranz Rail and I want to get up in this House and start talking about that company, then my shareholding is relevant. Of course, Key had done exactly that, without saying a thing...)"
These are not the answers of an honest man. Instead, they are the answers of a bullshitter, with the truth admitted only when he realises it is already known. That dishonest attitude may have served Key well when he was crashing currencies for fun and profit - but we expect rather better from our politicians.

Sigh.........

Is there an HONEST political party in the country - one that says exactly what it means, has the interests of the country AND ALL OF ITS CITIZENS at the forefront of it's agendas and policies and doesn't bow down before the god of failed Keynsian economics, dictatorial "we know whats good for you" ideologies, or "lock em up and throw away the keys" social policy?.....

No.

Didn't think so..........politicians.......they're all a pack of self serving arseholes, who'll say and do anything to get their hands on the controls of power!

I think I'll vote for Dr Pita Sharples again!

[Gremlin]

Before I say more, I may as well mention I would prefer National over Labour, I'm sick of this anti-business nanny fucken state.

Keys is an ex business man, I know some people in the treasury advisory business, market trading etc. They regularly make trades, various amounts, types etc. Keys said he owned shares, I would say thats enough. Depending on how active he is, how can you possibly remember the exact details of every trade? Additionally, why should he have to declare to all and sundry every trade he does?

Yes, I enjoy capitalism, but hello, someone is going to run this country, and so far, no-one has known what the hell they are doing. If Keys spots an opportunity to make a little, so what, others do.

He used obvious trusts etc... lets compare that to NZ First? Secret trust, no-one really knew what it did, know we know it channeled funds... Geeee.... which would I prefer?

[awayatc]

I hope key makes lots of profit....
means he must have a few clues.....
Good on him.
Also he should just tell the vultures to mind their own business and f*ck off.
Hope he'll be a key figure to put the PC crap to bed.....

[Skyryder]

Apart from the lies and bullshit of how many shares Key or his family trust owned or traded he was an active particapant in a company that he was opposing Labour should puchase. Under the normal rules of buisness conventions if Key had been on a corperate board he would know full well that any discussions by himself would have amounted to a conflict of interest. He has admitted his mistake. This in no way excuses his lies or deciept. The thing that got me is how easily he lied and when found out how easily he 'found' his memory.

Key is not yet the PM and already he is tainted by his own mouth


Skyryder

[Bullitt]

Skyrider is it reasonable to assume you have voted labour in every election youve been able to? That you would never vote national irrespective of who was in charge or what they stood for?

There isnt a politician who I would vote for if I had the choice but given I have to choose someone I have to choose the lesser of the evils available. I dont support Key but thats for entirely different reasons to what you have. This is the most corrupt government we have ever had and this Key issue is just mis-direction.

[JimO]

[/b]
key is not yet the pm and already he is tainted by his own mouth


skyryder

fuck next he will be signing stuff he didnt do and speeding about in the ltd......................get a fucken life skyrider

[Katman]

Skyryder, for someone who sounds so fervent about politics, you've forgotten the main factor governing election voting.

It's not about who you can or cannot trust.

It's about who you distrust the least.

[Skyryder]

Skyrider is it reasonable to assume you have voted labour in every election youve been able to? That you would never vote national irrespective of who was in charge or what they stood for?

There isnt a politician who I would vote for if I had the choice but given I have to choose someone I have to choose the lesser of the evils available. I dont support Key but thats for entirely different reasons to what you have. This is the most corrupt government we have ever had and this Key issue is just mis-direction.

The Berlin-based organization Transparency International, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand are perceived to be the world's least corrupt countries.

Now if you kind find something simular to back your claims......................

Country
rank Country 2007
CPI Score
1. Denmark 9.4
Finland 9.4
New Zealand 9.4
4. Singapore 9.3
Sweden 9.3
6. Iceland 9.2
7. Netherlands 9.0
Switzerland 9.0
9. Canada 8.7
Norway 8.7
11. Australia 8.6
12. Luxembourg 8.4
United Kingdom 8.4
14. Hong Kong 8.3
15. Austria 8.1
16. Germany 7.8
17. Ireland 7.5
Japan 7.5
19. France 7.3
20. USA 7.2
21. Belgium 7.1
22. Chile 7.0
23. Barbados 6.9
24. St. Lucia 6.8
25. Spain 6.7
Uruguay 6.7
27. Slovenia 6.6
28. Estonia 6.5
Portugal 6.5
30. Israel 6.1
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 6.1
32. Qatar 6.0
33. Malta 5.8
34. Macao 5.7
Taiwan 5.7
United Arab Emirates 5.7
37. Dominica 5.6
38. Botswana 5.4
39. Cyprus 5.3
Hungary 5.3
41. Czech Republic 5.2
Italy 5.2
43. Malaysia 5.1
South Africa 5.1
South Korea 5.1
46. Bahrain 5.0
Bhutan 5.0
Costa Rica 5.0
49. Cape Verde 4.9
Slovakia 4.9
51. Latvia 4.8
Lithuania 4.8
53. Jordan 4.7
Mauritius 4.7
Oman 4.7
56. Greece 4.6
57. Namibia 4.5
Samoa 4.5
Seychelles 4.5
60. Kuwait 4.3
61. Cuba 4.2
Poland 4.2
Tunisia 4.2
64. Bulgaria 4.1
Croatia 4.1
Turkey 4.1
67. El Salvador 4.0
68. Colombia 3.8
69. Ghana 3.7
Romania 3.7
71. Senegal 3.6
72. Brazil 3.5
China 3.5
India 3.5
Mexico 3.5
Morocco 3.5
Peru 3.5
Suriname 3.5
79. Georgia 3.4
Grenada 3.4
Saudi Arabia 3.4
Serbia 3.4
Trinidad and Tobago 3.4
84. Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.3
FYR Macedonia 3.3
Gabon 3.3
Jamaica 3.3
Kiribati 3.3
Lesotho 3.3
Maldives 3.3
Montenegro 3.3
Swaziland 3.3
Thailand 3.3
94. Madagascar 3.2
Panama 3.2
Sri Lanka 3.2
Tanzania 3.2
98. Vanuatu 3.1
99. Algeria 3.0
Armenia 3.0
Belize 3.0
Dominican Republic 3.0
Lebanon 3.0
Mongolia 3.0
105. Albania 2.9
Argentina 2.9
Bolivia 2.9
Burkina Faso 2.9
Djibouti 2.9
Egypt 2.9
111. Eritrea 2.8
Guatemala 2.8
Moldova 2.8
Mozambique 2.8
Rwanda 2.8
Solomon Islands 2.8
Uganda 2.8
118. Benin 2.7
Malawi 2.7
Mali 2.7
Sao Tome and Principe 2.7
Ukraine 2.7
123. Comoros 2.6
Guyana 2.6
Mauritania 2.6
Nicaragua 2.6
Niger 2.6
Timor-Leste 2.6
Viet Nam 2.6
Zambia 2.6
131. Burundi 2.5
Honduras 2.5
Iran 2.5
Libya 2.5
Nepal 2.5
Philippines 2.5
Yemen 2.5
138. Cameroon 2.4
Ethiophia 2.4
Pakistan 2.4
Paraguay 2.4
Syria 2.4
143. Gambia 2.3
Indonesia 2.3
Russia 2.3
Togo 2.3
147. Angola 2.2
Guinea-Bissau 2.2
Nigeria 2.2
150. Azerbaijan 2.1
Belarus 2.1
Congo, Republic 2.1
Côte d´Ivoire 2.1
Ecuador 2.1
Kazakhstan 2.1
Kenya 2.1
Kyrgyzstan 2.1
Liberia 2.1
Sierra Leone 2.1
Tajikistan 2.1
Zimbabwe 2.1
162. Bangladesh 2.0
Cambodia 2.0
Central African Republic 2.0
Papua New Guinea 2.0
Turkmenistan 2.0
Venezuela 2.0
168. Congo, Democratic Republic of 1.9
Equatorial Guinea 1.9
Guinea 1.9
Laos 1.9
172. Afghanistan 1.8
Chad 1.8
Sudan 1.8
175. Tonga 1.7
Uzbekistan 1.7
177. Haiti 1.6
178. Iraq 1.5
179. Myanmar 1.4
Somalia 1.4
Source: Transparency International, 2007. Web: www.transparency.org .

[98tls]

The Berlin-based organization Transparency International, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand are perceived to be the world's least corrupt countries.

Now if you kind find something simular to back your claims......................

Country
rank Country 2007
CPI Score
1. Denmark 9.4
Finland 9.4
New Zealand 9.4
4. Singapore 9.3
Sweden 9.3
6. Iceland 9.2
7. Netherlands 9.0
Switzerland 9.0
9. Canada 8.7
Norway 8.7
11. Australia 8.6
12. Luxembourg 8.4
United Kingdom 8.4
14. Hong Kong 8.3
15. Austria 8.1
16. Germany 7.8
17. Ireland 7.5
Japan 7.5
19. France 7.3
20. USA 7.2
21. Belgium 7.1
22. Chile 7.0
23. Barbados 6.9
24. St. Lucia 6.8
25. Spain 6.7
Uruguay 6.7
27. Slovenia 6.6
28. Estonia 6.5
Portugal 6.5
30. Israel 6.1
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 6.1
32. Qatar 6.0
33. Malta 5.8
34. Macao 5.7
Taiwan 5.7
United Arab Emirates 5.7
37. Dominica 5.6
38. Botswana 5.4
39. Cyprus 5.3
Hungary 5.3
41. Czech Republic 5.2
Italy 5.2
43. Malaysia 5.1
South Africa 5.1
South Korea 5.1
46. Bahrain 5.0
Bhutan 5.0
Costa Rica 5.0
49. Cape Verde 4.9
Slovakia 4.9
51. Latvia 4.8
Lithuania 4.8
53. Jordan 4.7
Mauritius 4.7
Oman 4.7
56. Greece 4.6
57. Namibia 4.5
Samoa 4.5
Seychelles 4.5
60. Kuwait 4.3
61. Cuba 4.2
Poland 4.2
Tunisia 4.2
64. Bulgaria 4.1
Croatia 4.1
Turkey 4.1
67. El Salvador 4.0
68. Colombia 3.8
69. Ghana 3.7
Romania 3.7
71. Senegal 3.6
72. Brazil 3.5
China 3.5
India 3.5
Mexico 3.5
Morocco 3.5
Peru 3.5
Suriname 3.5
79. Georgia 3.4
Grenada 3.4
Saudi Arabia 3.4
Serbia 3.4
Trinidad and Tobago 3.4
84. Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.3
FYR Macedonia 3.3
Gabon 3.3
Jamaica 3.3
Kiribati 3.3
Lesotho 3.3
Maldives 3.3
Montenegro 3.3
Swaziland 3.3
Thailand 3.3
94. Madagascar 3.2
Panama 3.2
Sri Lanka 3.2
Tanzania 3.2
98. Vanuatu 3.1
99. Algeria 3.0
Armenia 3.0
Belize 3.0
Dominican Republic 3.0
Lebanon 3.0
Mongolia 3.0
105. Albania 2.9
Argentina 2.9
Bolivia 2.9
Burkina Faso 2.9
Djibouti 2.9
Egypt 2.9
111. Eritrea 2.8
Guatemala 2.8
Moldova 2.8
Mozambique 2.8
Rwanda 2.8
Solomon Islands 2.8
Uganda 2.8
118. Benin 2.7
Malawi 2.7
Mali 2.7
Sao Tome and Principe 2.7
Ukraine 2.7
123. Comoros 2.6
Guyana 2.6
Mauritania 2.6
Nicaragua 2.6
Niger 2.6
Timor-Leste 2.6
Viet Nam 2.6
Zambia 2.6
131. Burundi 2.5
Honduras 2.5
Iran 2.5
Libya 2.5
Nepal 2.5
Philippines 2.5
Yemen 2.5
138. Cameroon 2.4
Ethiophia 2.4
Pakistan 2.4
Paraguay 2.4
Syria 2.4
143. Gambia 2.3
Indonesia 2.3
Russia 2.3
Togo 2.3
147. Angola 2.2
Guinea-Bissau 2.2
Nigeria 2.2
150. Azerbaijan 2.1
Belarus 2.1
Congo, Republic 2.1
Côte d´Ivoire 2.1
Ecuador 2.1
Kazakhstan 2.1
Kenya 2.1
Kyrgyzstan 2.1
Liberia 2.1
Sierra Leone 2.1
Tajikistan 2.1
Zimbabwe 2.1
162. Bangladesh 2.0
Cambodia 2.0
Central African Republic 2.0
Papua New Guinea 2.0
Turkmenistan 2.0
Venezuela 2.0
168. Congo, Democratic Republic of 1.9
Equatorial Guinea 1.9
Guinea 1.9
Laos 1.9
172. Afghanistan 1.8
Chad 1.8
Sudan 1.8
175. Tonga 1.7
Uzbekistan 1.7
177. Haiti 1.6
178. Iraq 1.5
179. Myanmar 1.4
Somalia 1.4
Source: Transparency International, 2007. Web: www.transparency.org . Then again mate as history shows Berlin based organisations have been known to have issues.

[idleidolidyll]

of course it's unethical: he was using his privileges as a politician for pecuniary gain: that's the essence of why insider trading is illegal.

capitalism is melting down at the moment and it's pretty much all the fault of people like Key.

those fat cats gamble with other people's money but when it all turns to shit they want a government to bail them out.

at other times they are whining that there's too much regulation in business!

newstime! the reason there is regulation in business is to stop rampant capitalism like that in the US from raping mum and dad savings accounts.

capitalism is about the rich having control and freedom to do what they want; that will always end in abuse.

without socialism (democratic state regulation of businesses so they are less able to rip off the public), we would all face this shit all the time.

the kicker is that these asswipes pay themselves a fortune to mismanage other people's money!

[T.W.R]

of course it's unethical: he was using his privileges as a politician for pecuniary gain: that's the essence of why insider trading is illegal.

capitalism is melting down at the moment and it's pretty much all the fault of people like Key.

those fat cats gamble with other people's money but when it all turns to shit they want a government to bail them out.

at other times they are whining that there's too much regulation in business!

newstime! the reason there is regulation in business is to stop rampant capitalism like that in the US from raping mum and dad savings accounts.

capitalism is about the rich having control and freedom to do what they want; that will always end in abuse.

without socialism (democratic state regulation of businesses so they are less able to rip off the public), we would all face this shit all the time.

the kicker is that these asswipes pay themselves a fortune to mismanage other people's money!

:niceone: oooh the Key holes wont want to hear that :first:

[idleidolidyll]

Skyryder, for someone who sounds so fervent about politics, you've forgotten the main factor governing election voting.

It's not about who you can or cannot trust.

It's about who you distrust the least.

OK, lets rate the parties on trust then based on history (what they have said they'd do compared to what they did do)

Most trusted at the top and least at the bottom.

1. Greens
2. Progressive
3. Labour
4. NZ First
5. National
6. ACT based on the liars who left Labour after imposing right wing policies on a left wing ticket

I was listening to the radio a few days back and a bloke has just completed the first thesis on just this theme.
The worst government ever re keeping election promises was a National Govt with just 50%. The current Labour Govt is about 80%.

I reckon Key as a person rates as a liar of the second order ('cause he's only a 2nd rate politician anyway)

[Skyryder]

of course it's unethical: he was using his privileges as a politician for pecuniary gain: that's the essence of why insider trading is illegal.

capitalism is melting down at the moment and it's pretty much all the fault of people like Key.

those fat cats gamble with other people's money but when it all turns to shit they want a government to bail them out.

at other times they are whining that there's too much regulation in business!

newstime! the reason there is regulation in business is to stop rampant capitalism like that in the US from raping mum and dad savings accounts.

capitalism is about the rich having control and freedom to do what they want; that will always end in abuse.

without socialism (democratic state regulation of businesses so they are less able to rip off the public), we would all face this shit all the time.

the kicker is that these asswipes pay themselves a fortune to mismanage other people's money!

Now here's a man who knows what he's on about.




Skyrder

[SPman]

This is the most corrupt government we have ever had and this Key issue is just mis-direction.
Corrupt?
Not really - it's just full of it's own self importance most of the time. The Winston saga is going to be Helens downfall this time! She's really kicked the stool out from under the gibbet on this one!
Most people bandying the word corrupt in reference to the current Labour government, don't really seem to have much knowledge of previous governments, let alone the real naked corruptness of countless others, around the world.

[Skyryder]

OK, lets rate the parties on trust then based on history (what they have said they'd do compared to what they did do)

Most trusted at the top and least at the bottom.

1. Greens
2. Progressive
3. Labour
4. NZ First
5. National
6. ACT based on the liars who left Labour after imposing right wing policies on a left wing ticket

I was listening to the radio a few days back and a bloke has just completed the first thesis on just this theme.
The worst government ever re keeping election promises was a National Govt with just 50%. The current Labour Govt is about 80%.

I reckon Key as a person rates as a liar of the second order ('cause he's only a 2nd rate politician anyway)

I'd agree with the proviso that the Progressives be at the top. They were the only party who did not break any election laws. I applaud your leaving out Dunne and United Future. Their lack of trust does not even equate with them being on the list.

Skyryder

[ManDownUnder]

Now here's a man who knows what he's on about.
Skyrder

LOL Credit where it's due - III's a bright boy, and good at stirring the pot... maybe that was his intention?

Bloody Key had the temerity to front up and be asked the straight questions... and admit he'd been caught on the hop, no time to prepare answers and do his research... and say "I don't know" - which would have obviously been an admission of some sort... or taken as him avoiding something.

And as for Helen and Winston fronting up too... interesting wasn't it? Polly's only do something when they're safe, and the have something to gain. The have numbers in the house... at the moment.

They weren't going to win the public debate - so they avoided it.

To me that latter two issues speak louder than anything else.

Oh -and III - good stuff man... keep it up.

[retro asian]

It was said that he lost $68K selling those shares at a loss.
That's not profiteering...

I reckon he could be telling the truth and just made a blunder.
The media in general is usually so misinformed they lie 3 times as much as politicians do!!!

[idleidolidyll]

I'd agree with the proviso that the Progressives be at the top. They were the only party who did not break any election laws. I applaud your leaving out Dunne and United Future. Their lack of trust does not even equate with them being on the list.

Skyryder

Dunne is a waka hopper like Winston (in terms of who they will support). He doesn't care which party he supports as long as he gets to play the game.

[Skyryder]

Corrupt?
Not really - it's just full of it's own self importance most of the time. The Winston saga is going to be Helens downfall this time! She's really kicked the stool out from under the gibbet on this one!
Most people bandying the word corrupt in reference to the current Labour government, don't really seem to have much knowledge of previous governments, let alone the real naked corruptness of countless others, around the world.

I tend to agree. Most do not seem to recognise the difference between a corrupt govt and an MP who practices corruption in his own electorate. The general allegation of Labour corruption tends to lend itself to Clark's signature on a painting that was auctioned for charity, the motorcade event in which some might remember I was hostile to, in event of the drivers eventually getting off. Some trot out the electoral fiasco of Labour but fail to mention that all other parties with the exception of the Progressives were equally 'corrupt.'


Skyryder

[idleidolidyll]

It was said that he lost $68K selling those shares at a loss.
That's not profiteering...

I reckon he could be telling the truth and just made a blunder.
The media in general is usually so misinformed they lie 3 times as much as politicians do!!!

actually that just shows that hes a gambler and not always a winner.
he abused his position while lying about his shareholdings.
even then he fucked up and you want him as your leader?

gasp!

as for the media, it's funny how so often they are supported when bashing labour but whined at when bashing national.................it cuts both ways but on the whole we are just another country with a media dominated by capitalism.

we have a little more journalistic freedom than some but an open press is just a fiction: the media is driven by self interest here as in most western nations

[Winston001]

Sigh.........

Is there an HONEST political party in the country - one that says exactly what it means, has the interests of the country AND ALL OF ITS CITIZENS at the forefront of it's agendas and policies and doesn't bow down before the god of failed Keynsian economics, dictatorial "we know whats good for you" ideologies, or "lock em up and throw away the keys" social policy?.....

No.

Didn't think so..........politicians.......they're all a pack of self serving arseholes, who'll say and do anything to get their hands on the controls of power!

I think I'll vote for Dr Pita Sharples again!

I'm sure many Kiwis feel the same which is a shame. In reality all of our political parties are honest and well meaning - even Labour. The reason you (and I) are so disillusioned is because of all the small-minded sniping which takes place every time some MPs get near a microphone. Jim Anderton is a classic - everything is the fault of someone else.

We need to get beyond that and our representatives are the Fourth estate = the media. If our journalists refused to be drawn into the mud slinging - (such as Keys ownership of shares in 2003 for Pete's sake!!! :wacko: ) and asked questions about the balance of trade, emigration to Australia etc, we might, just might, start to talk about some important stuff.

[Skyryder]

It was said that he lost $68K selling those shares at a loss.
That's not profiteering...

I reckon he could be telling the truth and just made a blunder.
The media in general is usually so misinformed they lie 3 times as much as politicians do!!!

No he deliberatly lied and only altered his story after the journo informed him that he had bought 50000. A mistake is unintential but Key new was on the hop and had no choice to change his story before he was further in the mire.


Skyryder

[bomma]

key is a better man than helen

but helen's got bigger ballz

[trustme]

Skyryder. go see your doctor , get back on those meds real quick.

This is a storm in a tea cup, the real issue is the total lack of integrity displayed by Winnie/ Labour. Who tipped Winnie off to go to Glenn .
Henry knows, Winnie knows, Mike Williams knows, they are not telling so what have they got to hide . my bet is Auntie Helen , she covers for Winnie to cover herself.

[SPman]

The rumours are, that Helen has got some REAL dirt on Key and the Nats, which she'll release nearer the election........
It'll need to be pretty good to take peoples minds off how she's expediently handled (for her) Winnies despicabilities.......

[hospitalfood]

damn, thought somebody was going to learn me how to unlock all pussy
duped again!

[Bullitt]

Skyrider the list you posted I suspect relates to the entire country not the Government itself. I have no doubt you can set up a new company without having to pay a bribe or similar injustices however thats a separate issue to whether politicians act with a level of integrity expected of people holding office (which is obviously far lower than that of normal people)

Shall we go through some of the injustices Klarke has personally been responsible for such as:
Openly flaunting laws that she expects everyone else to stick to (noone has ever been in a car doing 180ks and not realised it, of course they didnt slow down because she told them to go that fast).
Forgery (Signing your name on someone elses work is pretty serious)
Openly endorsing the activities of Peters despite him clearly breaking a number of serious laws (including bribery) when he's been proven wrong by everyone.
Accusing various bodies of various unjustified activities such as the SFO, Priviliges Committe, their largest donor etc

While I admit Ive only been following politics for about 15 years so dont know much first hand about Muldoon but Ive covered alot of it at uni as well as many very experienced politicial comentators supporting the claim that this is the most corrupt government NZ has ever had

[Skyryder]

Skyryder. go see your doctor , get back on those meds real quick.

This is a storm in a tea cup, the real issue is the total lack of integrity displayed by Winnie/ Labour. Who tipped Winnie off to go to Glenn .
Henry knows, Winnie knows, Mike Williams knows, they are not telling so what have they got to hide . my bet is Auntie Helen , she covers for Winnie to cover herself.


No it's not. It's about Key claiming the moral high ground on ethics and trust then slipping on his own shit.


Skyyrder

[Robert Taylor]

Sorry about the thread name but I can think of no other word that 'so' describes this man.


John Key has got to be the ‘most’ hypocritical cunt in Parliment. He stands up in Parliament and pontificates on Clarke’s dishonesty in respect to the Owens/Peters loan and yet his lack of integrity is demonstrated by his purchase of 50,000 shares of Tranz Rail in Keys own name, and get this, while at the same time criticizing the Labour Government for wanting to buy back the Rail. Keys lame excuse on TV news that no one 'asked' and he lost money in no way excuses the fact that Keys purchase of the shares was too profit. Too profit while at the same time oppose Labour's buy back of the rail has got to be one of the most cynical and unethical actions I have ever witnessed in all my time of political activity. I’ve seen some shockers but this without exception beats all.



Skyryder.

Well, you better get used to him as he will be calling the shots after November 8th. No amount of socialist ''counter offensives'' are going to save the most hypocritical and corrupt, self serving government in our history.
Lucky for the socialists in this country that it is not a General Pinochet type character taking over. That dear old man engaged in a wee bit of ( shall we say ) ''cleansing''

[Skyryder]

Skyrider the list you posted I suspect relates to the entire country not the Government itself.

You 'suspect' wrongly.

Transparency International publishes its index on its public officials and politicians. That's the the Government not the countries buisness.


Skyryder

[Swoop]

Walking up to any person and asking them "off the top of your head, how many xyz shares did/do you own" would be next to impossible.
How many tell-lie-con shares did he own?
How many Vector shares, etc, etc.


However it is a nice (but blatantly obvious) attempt at a distraction from the main event of Winne-in-the-pooh.

[Skyryder]

Walking up to any person and asking them "off the top of your head, how many xyz shares did/do you own" would be next to impossible.
How many tell-lie-con shares did he own?
How many Vector shares, etc, etc.


However it is a nice (but blatantly obvious) attempt at a distraction from the main event of Winne-in-the-pooh.


Well Key knew pretty quickly after he lied. 50000 Key said then changed that to 100,000.

No ums or maybes but 'YEP.'

Skyryder

[enigma51]

Its very easy dont vote national or labour or greens if you dont want to. Its called democracy given power to the fuckwits for centuries!

[enigma51]

Well Key knew pretty quickly after he lied. 50000 Key said then changed that to 1000,000.

No ums or maybes but 'YEP.'

Skyryder

you mean 100000

See even you can make mistakes

[Skyryder]

Well, you better get used to him as he will be calling the shots after November 8th. No amount of socialist ''counter offensives'' are going to save the most hypocritical and corrupt, self serving government in our history.
Lucky for the socialists in this country that it is not a General Pinochet type character taking over. That dear old man engaged in a wee bit of ( shall we say ) ''cleansing''


Not for long he won't. You think the Nats are going to keep Key if he does win the election. Just sit back and take off the blinkers just for a minute. look at how many goofs he's made. Key is a pleasent face with a snake oil salemans tounge. No more. I'd give Key six months before's he's rolled. Shit :Oops:it may even happen before he can even form a govt. :bash: Keys a light weight and an embarressemnt to the party's dries.

He's fucked up so much do realy think that he will be allowed to fuck up even further and in Govt? Take the blinkers off from Clarke and Labour and just look.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

you mean 100000

See even you can make mistakes

Mistake corrected. :Oops: Am I forgiven:bash:

Skyryder

[Patrick]

... John Key has made an enormous blunder and Labour will milk it for all it's worth.


Key made the following statement:

• I didn’t release details of those shareholdings at that time. In hindsight I should have, and I am doing so now.

So he owns up he could have done a better job at managing this and fronts up with all the facts. No bullshit - no bluster.

Would Helen and Winnie have done the same ? Given their actions of late - I think its clear that they wouldnt have.

He coughed up, after being caught out. Winnie and Helen could learn a lot from this guy. I bet this is a dead duck before lunchtime tomorrow, because he made a mistake... not a single "NO" sign and blatant arrogance seen anywhere....

Now, you call him "cunt." After November 8, call him Prime Minister.

[Patrick]

Well Key knew pretty quickly after he lied. 50000 Key said then changed that to 1000,000.

No ums or maybes but 'YEP.'

Skyryder

Now, now, Mr Skyrider... you are deliberately deceiving KB..:nono::Pokey: Does this mean you are a.... ???????

[Skyryder]

He coughed up, after being caught out. Winnie and Helen could learn a lot from this guy. I bet this is a dead duck before lunchtime tomorrow, because he made a mistake... not a single "NO" sign and blatant arrogance seen anywhere....

Now, you call him "cunt." After November 8, call him Prime Minister.


He'll always be a cunt for this. I have no time for liars no matter what political shade they be on.

As for Winnie and Helen. Clarke has not lied to the House. On Peters I can make no such claim other than to say there is no 'evidence' that he has lied. most commentators state that he (Peters) must have known This is speculitive and not proof.


Skyryder

[Swoop]

I have no time for liars no matter what political shade they be on.
That is a bit hypocritical isn't it?
After all the lies that that toxic bitch Heilen Klerke has uttered.

[Skyryder]

Now, now, Mr Skyrider... you are deliberately deceiving KB..:nono::Pokey: Does this mean you are a.... ???????


No more than your misspelling of my name. :dodge: But then I do that my self. :hug:
Skyryder

[Patrick]

Clarke has not lied to the House.

She knew about the donation saga months ago...:whistle:

Paintergate and speedgate... just to name a few...:yawn::zzzz:

:beer::beer:

[Skyryder]

That is a bit hypocritical isn't it?
After all the lies that that toxic bitch Heilen Klerke has uttered.


Wel I don't recall her ever being put up too the Priviledges Committee nor do I recall her ever being taken to Court for slander contempt etc. But if you want to start a thread go ahead.

Skyryder

[Swoop]

Wel I don't recall her ever being put up too the Priviledges Committee nor do I recall her ever being taken to Court for slander contempt etc. But if you want to start a thread go ahead.

Skyryder
Yup. As expected, refusing to see the facts.

[98tls]

All shit aside ive no idea who the hell to vote for and i find it annoying.

[Manxman]

I don't think those words mean what you think they do :laugh:

Anyway, I'm not! Long live the left-of-centre!

Err, yeah. I know exactly what liberal means.

The are many definitions of liberal (note small "l") washing around. A couple of the ones I choose to use in this context are:
1) tending to republican forms of government (read: El Presidente Clark)
2) lacking moral restraint (read: letting losers do whatever the heck they like and then government claiming to fix things, but in reality government is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff)
3) a focus on civil rights (errr, whatever happened to civil responsibilities????)...not to mention values, accountability and respect for others.
4) Social liberals argue that power disparities cause contracts to favor the rich. To which economic liberals reply, "Then don't sign." [I'm an economic liberal BTW].

Generally what I mean by liberal, is a tendency for the tail to wag the dog, which happens all too frequently under this regime.

So, you can see that I understand what liberal means. That it might differ from your interpretation is neither here nor there, it's the context in which the word is used that matters. :bleh::laugh::laugh:

[Bullitt]

All shit aside ive no idea who the hell to vote for and i find it annoying.

Just remember:
A vote for Labour is a vote for Winston Peters
MP will get more maori seats than their overall % so will be a wasted vote.

So depending on your views your left with
Greens, United, Progressive, National, ACT and some minnows who wont get near Parliament.

[98tls]

Awaiting confirmation Keys is a paid up member of "Stormfront" and will go from there.:niceone:

[Skyryder]

She knew about the donation saga months ago...:whistle:

Paintergate and speedgate... just to name a few...:yawn::zzzz:

:beer::beer:


:zzzz::beer::beer: 'Bout the only thing correct in your post.

Knowing is not lying. Big difference. As for the other two, been there and done that.





Skyryder

[Dargor]

Dont forget kiwi!

A vote for the kiwi party is a vote for more power.(for us!)

[Manxman]

Oh, and then there was Michael Cullen, the second most important man in NZ politics - behind Helen...two steps behind in fact - who goes on TV to say that the Privileges Committee made the wrong decision.

The fact that this was a democratic decision, made up of politicians of all colours, sent a slight shudder down my spine.

What will he challenge next? The SFO? Ooops, my bad - he's already done that. By refusing to publicly state his confidence in them. Based on what? An anonymous letter, allegedly sent by someone within the SFO. Gee that's really robust and credible, eh?

So, there you have it. An arrogant man who is not prepared to accept a democratic decision, or support an organisation that (currently) exists to detect and investigate serious fraud. Mmmmmm. Slowly, ever so slowly, the foundations and principles on which we were mostly brought up to believe in, are eroded from within.

If Labour are elected this time around, then I'm afraid we will need to adopt the position and kiss our arses goodbye (that's unless one of the Rainbow Room brigade get there first...http://www.stuff.co.nz/4702547a6160.html:shutup:

[trustme]

:zzzz::beer::beer: 'Bout the only thing correct in your post.

Knowing is not lying. Big difference.

Skyryder

What you really mean is you are only dishonest if you get caught

[Skyryder]

Oh, and then there was Michael Cullen, the second most important man in NZ politics - behind Helen...two steps behind in fact - who goes on TV to say that the Privileges Committee made the wrong decision.

The fact that this was a democratic decision, made up of politicians of all colours, sent a slight shudder down my spine.

What will he challenge next? The SFO? Ooops, my bad - he's already done that. By refusing to publicly state his confidence in them. Based on what? An anonymous letter, allegedly sent by someone within the SFO. Gee that's really robust and credible, eh?

So, there you have it. An arrogant man who is not prepared to accept a democratic decision, or support an organisation that (currently) exists to detect and investigate serious fraud. Mmmmmm. Slowly, ever so slowly, the foundations and principles on which we were mostly brought up to believe in, are eroded from within.

If Labour are elected this time around, then I'm afraid we will need to adopt the position and kiss are arses goodbye (that's if one of the Rainbow Room brigade don't get there first...):shutup:


Apart from the main party lines the decision was from the Greens the Maori Party and United Future. These three parties chose not to believe Winstone. Now before any one jumps up and down on me just let me say that I'm no fan of Peters and I think there is more on the SFO than meets the eye. This orgaisation is going to be disbanded and it is not unreasable to believe that there may be some hostility from its members towards Labour for this. Cullen may well have grounds to have doubts about it's confidence. I seem to recall that the Nats will retain the SFO so if I am correct on this the SFO impartiality may be in doubt. I agree that this is speculation on my part. This aside all three, the Greens Maori Party and United Future may have cast their vote on the assumption that the Nats are going to ber the next Govt. In short their vote for Winstones guilt may have more to do with their own party positions visa via a coalition with the Nats than an actual belief in Winstones guilt. Another factor to be taken into this is the public perception that Winstone is guilty and their vote accordingly is for this reason so as not to be seen as offering him support in the coming election. Under normal circumsatnces I would accept the findings for what they are worth but with the election just round the corner I 'suspect' that there are other factors that all three have taken when they voted for Winstones guilt.


Skyryder

[trustme]

Who dis Winstone yo talkin bout. Mistake or yo lyin to us Skyryder

[98tls]

Possibly the answer is to withdraw from the electoral roll en-masse citing not an ounce of confidence in any of them.

[Robert Taylor]

Not for long he won't. You think the Nats are going to keep Key if he does win the election. Just sit back and take off the blinkers just for a minute. look at how many goofs he's made. Key is a pleasent face with a snake oil salemans tounge. No more. I'd give Key six months before's he's rolled. Shit :Oops:it may even happen before he can even form a govt. :bash: Keys a light weight and an embarressemnt to the party's dries.

He's fucked up so much do realy think that he will be allowed to fuck up even further and in Govt? Take the blinkers off from Clarke and Labour and just look.

Skyryder

Ok, put it this way. To elect Key is a price well worth paying just to get rid of that ugly conniving bitch.

[Max Preload]

the kicker is that these asswipes pay themselves a fortune to mismanage other people's money!

Only if you let them. In any case it sure beats the current alternative of the government taking $1 from you and returning $0.40 if you're lucky.

[k14]

Well Key knew pretty quickly after he lied. 50000 Key said then changed that to 100,000.

No ums or maybes but 'YEP.'

Skyryder
I've been pondering my opinion on this and that is all it stems down to. I don't see the significance of the numbers in question, 50000/100000 are all pretty much the same in the big picture. He didn't ever say he didn't own shares in tranzrail, he bought them before he got involved in the takeover bid discussions (however small and insignificant they were) and then he sold them after he worked out that he was probably in a "grey" area as far as conflicts of interests go. To add to that he made a $110k loss. He could have tried to keep them quiet and wait for another year to avoid that loss but he took it on the chin cause he knew it was the right thing to do.

This whole saga is indeed a storm in a teacup. It is tvnz pushing its own agenda to keep its bosses happy and hoping the reds keep in office so they can keep on their merry way as they are at the moment.

[idleidolidyll]

Just remember:
A vote for Labour is a vote for Winston

Good grief! You swallowed that trite propaganda?
Both major parties have had Peters in their cabinets and Key would backpedal in a moment if it meant taking power or spending the next three years on the backburner.
The man is a liar and an opportunist.

That said, vote Green or Prpgressive but for ducks sake don't vote right wing: those liars are why your wages are so low today.

i

[enigma51]

Ok, put it this way. To elect Key is a price well worth paying just to get rid of that ugly conniving bitch.

You being rude comparing her to a female dog. My bitch sleeps in the house ........... i wouldn't allow helen too sleep in the house

[Pussy]

You being rude comparing her to a female dog. My bitch sleeps in the house ........... i wouldn't allow helen too sleep in the house

I thought RT was being insensitive to female canines as well....

[merv]

Ok, put it this way. To elect Key is a price well worth paying just to get rid of that ugly conniving bitch.

You sound a bit miffed Robert, did you hit on her at a pub one night or something and she brushed you off?

[trustme]

50,000 100,000 or 1,000,000, who cares , he's a rich prick in labours eyes & deserves to be dragged back down to their level by what ever means , fair or foul
This whole beat up tells me far more about the mentality of the extreme left than it does anything about Key

[trustme]

I have been a supervisor, manager & employer of staff for the thick end of thirty years, experince has taught me something.
We all make mistakes, & I have made a fair few. Its how people handle their mistakes that causes the problem. If you admit you stuffed up, chances are you wont do it again & I always give those people the benefit of the doubt.
People who stuff up then lie, dodge evade & refuse to take any responsibility are not to be trusted , invariably they let you down at the worst possible moment.
Key stuffed up but has admitted it when confronted , lesson learned , move on.
Winnie's response has been deny, deny, deny, attack has been the best form of defense when the defense has more holes in it than a sieve.
Labour has aided & abetted him for their own gain.
I have lost all respect for this labour govt over the last three years . The election over spending affair was a disgrace & they saved their bacon by changing the law to legalise what they had done, neither they nor Winnie has ever fronted up & said we were wrong we apologise, instead they introduced the electoral finance act to stack the odds in their favour, a move I hope they will come to regret.

The only parties to come out of it clean are Greens, Maori, Dunne, even Anderton abstained rather than sully himself by supporting labour in an affair that does nothing for the reputation of parliament

I have voted labour , I had respect for Clark as a person of integrity although I didn't like her politics, I now have nothing but contempt for her & her administration

[roogazza]

So. its agreed then, Key will win and we'll be rid of Clarke and the
garden gnome ? (can't wait ). Gaz.

[trustme]

Far from agreed . Key & his team are naive & far too accident prone ,& they are up against the most dominant politician we have seen since Piggie, both of whom I dislike intensely. Clark is a scrapper in the vein of Mike Tyson, each in their prime fearless , tough & ruthless competitors. Tyson became a joke & I suspect Clark will ultimately be considered one of our most able prime ministers but ultimately a failure, in times of world wide economic growth, we have continued to slide down the OECD list
when elected her aim was to raise us up the list , by her own benchmark she is a failure

[Toaster]

If you have any sort of ethics and integrity you do not profit from that which you oppose. Pretty simple realy. I think even a baboon could understand that.


Skyryder

Mate - these are politicians we are talking about here. All of them very self-serving on both sides.

The media is just as bad too - also self-serving and one-sided to suit their "scoops" and to hell with the truth.

Personally I am sick of the lot of them. We fund these arsewipes with taxpayer dollars to hire spin doctors and researchers to dig into each others past so they can sling mud at eachother in election year. Waste of our hard earned money.

[vifferman]

Quite right, Mr Toaster. Sad but true...
What to do?
There are some decent politicians (yeah, I know that in general honesty/integrity and politician and mutually exclusive terms), but generally they lose sight of the fact that they were elected and didn't just get there by dint of their own huge brains and good looks, and that they are civil servants. So... you have a good'un in your electorate, and vote for them, regardless of which crappy party they belong to, then what? What do you do with your party vote? And does it matter? Once they're in, they're basically a will unto themselves.
I don't really give a crap who is in Gummit, but I would like to see the country turned around: get rid of the thousands of consultants and bureaucrats that have crept in while Labour's been in power, lower the tax rate to stimulate the economy, stop pegging the official cash rate against real estate values and let it float a bit more, get rid of the ridiculous tax punishments for using fossil fuels, stop sucking up to Greenpeace lesbians and weirdos, and do something to encourage people to get off benefits.
Oh - and stop regarding infractions of the speed limit as a crime. Given that almost everyone ignores the speed limits, how about relaxing them a little? If someone's speeding in an inappropriate place and/or driving like a plonker, then give them a sound thrashing (financially or otherwise), but if they're driving at 115 on the Canterbury Plains in light traffic, so fucking what? Aren't the road rules supposed to be about safety?


The media is just as bad too - also self-serving and one-sided to suit their "scoops" and to hell with the truth.
The Guy From Canadia at work has it sussed: the media is controlled by people who want you to look for them to find out what's going on in the world, so they can suck you into believing/trusting them for your world view. So, they undermine trust in the government and spread bullshit about the state of the world in order to achieve that.

[enigma51]

So. its agreed then, Key will win and we'll be rid of Clarke and the
garden gnome ? (can't wait ). Gaz.

the only guarantee we have is that there are some really ignorant people out there and they tend to follow who ever offer them the most easy cash available. Labour will bring out some new financial "benefit". Just look at the free schooling thing ..... great success for them!

[Hitcher]

Whatever they say or claim, no politician is to be trusted. They just want you to get them re-elected. Other than that, they care not a jot for you and yours.

[Skyryder]

I've been pondering my opinion on this and that is all it stems down to. I don't see the significance of the numbers in question, 50000/100000 are all pretty much the same in the big picture. He didn't ever say he didn't own shares in tranzrail, he bought them before he got involved in the takeover bid discussions (however small and insignificant they were) and then he sold them after he worked out that he was probably in a "grey" area as far as conflicts of interests go. To add to that he made a $110k loss. He could have tried to keep them quiet and wait for another year to avoid that loss but he took it on the chin cause he knew it was the right thing to do.

This whole saga is indeed a storm in a teacup. It is tvnz pushing its own agenda to keep its bosses happy and hoping the reds keep in office so they can keep on their merry way as they are at the moment.

No the numbers are important. He knowingly lied on this and believed that he would no be found out. This as I said is not a mistake. Mistakes are wrong decisions made in the best of interest. We all make mistakes none of us are perfect in that reguard but our mistakes are made in the best of interest and it is only in hindsight that we aknowledge them. Key was adamant 50000 max. No doubt on this number at all.
Then when he realised that the reporter knew this was not true he changed his story.....100,000 YEP......instantly so as to reduce damge. This is not an honest admission of a mistake but that of a slick operator fast on his feet. Now I personly have some admiration for people who can do this but that is tempered with some ethics and honesty. Key has failed in this and suggests a man less open to the truth than those he accuses.


That he lost on the deal is not the issue. He has been leading us to believe that he only held 30,000 and then blamed those who acepted this as the truth for not asking.

In short he blamed those that accepted his honesty for not asking 'exactly' how many shares he had.

That to me is the issue and all others in this thread are non events.


Skyryder

[Flatcap]

Whatever they say or claim, no politician is to be trusted. They just want you to get them re-elected. Other than that, they care not a jot for you and yours.

Nonsense - they care about Middle New Zealand...


...which as I understand is the bit between the nipples and the navel

[enigma51]

Nonsense - they care about Middle New Zealand...


...which as I understand is the bit between the nipples and the navel

Its called a waist and you know why its called that?


drum roll

Cause you can fit at least 3 vagina's in there.





Im here all weeks folks tell your friends

[Swoop]

50,000 100,000 or 1,000,000, who cares , he's a rich prick in labours eyes & deserves to be dragged back down to their level by what ever means , fair or foul
This whole beat up tells me far more about the mentality of the extreme left than it does anything about Key
One of the best posts in this thread. Bling to you.

Just look at the free schooling thing ..... great success for them!
Do not forget the "Education until the age of 18"...
We have to supply work to the labour-voting "teachers".

[slofox]

"There are good times just around the corner...." there's a song with this line in it....

My political memory goes back over fifty years. The one thing I have learned in that length of time is that no political party in New Zealand (or anywhere else for that matter) has ever had "all the answers"......with the best of intentions, each and every party has done whatever they thought was right at the time, but none of them have ever provided the universal panacea - and nor will they. A lot of what happens in NZ these days comes from offshore - oil prices, bank credit squeezes, commodity prices - you name it. Our government of whatever persuasion, is at best reactive, very rarely indeed, proactive. We are at the arse end of the globe, miles from anywhere and tiny to boot. The big boys don't give a hoot. We do the best we can in the circumstances we find ourselves in. Don't expect changing the colour of our government to solve all our problems - it don't work like that any more if it ever did.......changes are cosmetic, not fundamental.......bloody little ray of sunshine I am and all.....

[MisterD]

No the numbers are important. He knowingly lied on this and believed that he would no be found out. This as I said is not a mistake. Mistakes are wrong decisions made in the best of interest. We all make mistakes none of us are perfect in that reguard but our mistakes are made in the best of interest and it is only in hindsight that we aknowledge them. Key was adamant 50000 max. No doubt on this number at all.
Then when he realised that the reporter knew this was not true he changed his story.....100,000 YEP......instantly so as to reduce damge. This is not an honest admission of a mistake but that of a slick operator fast on his feet. Now I personly have some admiration for people who can do this but that is tempered with some ethics and honesty. Key has failed in this and suggests a man less open to the truth than those he accuses.


That he lost on the deal is not the issue. He has been leading us to believe that he only held 30,000 and then blamed those who acepted this as the truth for not asking.

In short he blamed those that accepted his honesty for not asking 'exactly' how many shares he had.

That to me is the issue and all others in this thread are non events.



Oh FFS Skyryder, the companies register is publicly available information - anyone can find out who hold what shares is what companies. How exactly was JK's holding "hidden"?

The scale of the shareholding is totally irrelevant to conflict of interest allegations. When Clark and Cullen first tried this smear in the house he was able to confidently rebut them because he was absolutely certain of the date when he instructed his broker to sell all his NZ share holdings.

What question was he being asked by Fran (honorary Liarbour member) Mold? How many other shares were bought / sold, in which case the answer is parcels of 50,000 or what was the largest shareholding he had -answer 100,000.

It's still a stupid beat-up, but I think every sensible person realises that and the contrast between JK's approach of admitting he could have done better and the Clark/Cullen "it's someone else's fault, I'm perfect, me" stance couldn't be starker.

Interesting that there are rumblings of discontent in the Liarbour caucus with how the senior faces have handled this, the post election blood-letting will be fun for young and old.

[Winston001]

Mate - these are politicians we are talking about here. All of them very self-serving on both sides.

We fund these arsewipes with taxpayer dollars to hire spin doctors and researchers to dig into each others past so they can sling mud at eachother in election year. Waste of our hard earned money.

Agreed. We are a tiny nation far removed from our markets with a slowly declining standard of living. So what do some MPs ask their staff to do? Sniff around listening to rumours and scanning emails on the off-chance they will find something about another MP. :sick:

Such triviality makes me sick. :blink:

[Pwalo]

That to me is the issue and all others in this thread are non events.


Skyryder[/QUOTE]

Good to see you keeping an open mind on the whole thing then.

[Winston001]

"There are good times just around the corner...." there's a song with this line in it....

My political memory goes back over fifty years. The one thing I have learned in that length of time is that no political party in New Zealand (or anywhere else for that matter) has ever had "all the answers"......with the best of intentions, each and every party has done whatever they thought was right at the time, but none of them have ever provided the universal panacea - and nor will they. A lot of what happens in NZ these days comes from offshore - oil prices, bank credit squeezes, commodity prices - you name it. Our government of whatever persuasion, is at best reactive, very rarely indeed, proactive. We are at the arse end of the globe, miles from anywhere and tiny to boot. The big boys don't give a hoot. We do the best we can in the circumstances we find ourselves in. Don't expect changing the colour of our government to solve all our problems - it don't work like that any more if it ever did.......changes are cosmetic, not fundamental.......bloody little ray of sunshine I am and all.....

WOOAAHHH :nono:

This is KB - no room for any sensible stuff here. Youi'll get banned!! :baby:

[Winston001]

Whatever they say or claim, no politician is to be trusted. They just want you to get them re-elected. Other than that, they care not a jot for you and yours.

Yes....and No.

The politicians I've known are genuine about wanting the best for their local community and New Zealand. They do care about you and me because we are such a small place that politicians can't live apart from the average person. On a beach, in the supermarket, tramping, our polies aren't guarded by police, you can walk up to 95% of them.

However - politics and power are subtle and addictive experiences. Once you've had them, its hard to walk away.

Also if you have ideas you want to put into action, you have to get other people to agree with you. To achieve that, you'll need to agree to their ideas. And thus......compromise occurs.

None of this means anything if you don't get elected, and specifically, you need to be on the winning side. Ethical highly intelligent politicians (like Simon Upton and Don Brash) are wasted if they aren't in the winning team. Even then the loud abrasive types overshadow them.

For all the criticism on KB and in a hundred pubs around the nation, how many of you have ever been a politician? It is a hellish job and one I could never do.

[k14]

No the numbers are important. He knowingly lied on this and believed that he would no be found out. This as I said is not a mistake. Mistakes are wrong decisions made in the best of interest. We all make mistakes none of us are perfect in that reguard but our mistakes are made in the best of interest and it is only in hindsight that we aknowledge them. Key was adamant 50000 max. No doubt on this number at all.
Then when he realised that the reporter knew this was not true he changed his story.....100,000 YEP......instantly so as to reduce damge. This is not an honest admission of a mistake but that of a slick operator fast on his feet. Now I personly have some admiration for people who can do this but that is tempered with some ethics and honesty. Key has failed in this and suggests a man less open to the truth than those he accuses.


That he lost on the deal is not the issue. He has been leading us to believe that he only held 30,000 and then blamed those who acepted this as the truth for not asking.

In short he blamed those that accepted his honesty for not asking 'exactly' how many shares he had.

That to me is the issue and all others in this thread are non events.


Skyryder
Yes well that is the other theory that is plausible. The reason I don't agree with it is what does he have to gain over lying intentionally about having less shares than he really did?? It doesn't make sense to me, what did he have to gain by leading the public to believe he had 50000 shares instead of 100000?? Maybe I am naive but we'll have to agree to disagree.

[imdying]

Transparency International publishes its index on its public officials and politicians. That's the the Government not the countries buisness.Situation reversed, you'd be the first one to say that it includes all of the public officials as well, not just the government, and thus not a true reflection on the government itself... your hypocrisy is pretty transparent.

I am enjoying watching the forum cut you down whilst you continue to try to make something bigger out of this than it is, not least of which is because the crowd you support is unarguably considerably more corrupt than the ones you're trying to sully.

Or have you not noticed that which is plainly obvious to the rest? Or maybe you're the only one with their tinfoil hat on right?

[vifferman]

The politicians I've known are genuine about wanting the best for their local community and New Zealand. They do care about you and me because we are such a small place that politicians can't live apart from the average person. On a beach, in the supermarket, tramping, our polies aren't guarded by police, you can walk up to 95% of them.

However - politics and power are subtle and addictive experiences. Once you've had them, its hard to walk away.

Also if you have ideas you want to put into action, you have to get other people to agree with you. To achieve that, you'll need to agree to their ideas. And thus......compromise occurs.

None of this means anything if you don't get elected, and specifically, you need to be on the winning side. Ethical highly intelligent politicians (like Simon Upton and Don Brash) are wasted if they aren't in the winning team. Even then the loud abrasive types overshadow them.

For all the criticism on KB and in a hundred pubs around the nation, how many of you have ever been a politician? It is a hellish job and one I could never do.
Good post, Mr Winston.
However, I believe (and I'm just plucking this out of my butt here) that while there are those politicians who fall into the "are genuine about wanting the best for their local community and New Zealand" category, and have run for parliament because they have a desire to change the way things are done, there are also that weird breed of politician who rose up through the ranks of school committees, Rotary, etc, and just love being on a committee, having meetings and making rules and passing votes and all that nonsense. They're weird! And they love rules'n'regulations and bureaucracy.
WHich brings up another point: to some extent it doesn't matter who is in power (unless they're total nutjobs) - we still have mostly the same lot of career bureaucrats actually running the country, and increasing the burden of bureaucracy that's weighing us down. Unfortunately, Labour has done a very good job of breeding these guys, and now we have more than ever before, and a whole lot more 'hangers on' who are employed as contractors at very great expense. And of course they want to maintain the status quo, and preserve their comfortable lifestyles and unproductive paper-shuffling, report-writing jobs, so an awful lot of what they do revolves around making their little packet of bureaucracy entrenched in the very fabric of The System.

[Skyryder]

Yes well that is the other theory that is plausible. The reason I don't agree with it is what does he have to gain over lying intentionally about having less shares than he really did?? It doesn't make sense to me, what did he have to gain by leading the public to believe he had 50000 shares instead of 100000?? Maybe I am naive but we'll have to agree to disagree.


Only Key would be able answer that. Why not ask him?

But your arguement in no alters the fact that he lied and then blamed others for not asking. I fail to see how you can disagree with this when it is on record.

Skyryder

[SPman]

the only guarantee we have is that there are some really ignorant people out there and they tend to follow who ever offer them the most easy cash available. Labour will bring out some new financial "benefit". Just look at the free schooling thing ..... great success for them!
And National are offering $50 a week tax cuts.......the cycle goes on......

[slofox]

Yes....and No.

The politicians I've known are genuine about wanting the best for their local community and New Zealand. They do care about you and me because we are such a small place that politicians can't live apart from the average person. On a beach, in the supermarket, tramping, our polies aren't guarded by police, you can walk up to 95% of them.

However - politics and power are subtle and addictive experiences. Once you've had them, its hard to walk away.

Also if you have ideas you want to put into action, you have to get other people to agree with you. To achieve that, you'll need to agree to their ideas. And thus......compromise occurs.

None of this means anything if you don't get elected, and specifically, you need to be on the winning side. Ethical highly intelligent politicians (like Simon Upton and Don Brash) are wasted if they aren't in the winning team. Even then the loud abrasive types overshadow them.

For all the criticism on KB and in a hundred pubs around the nation, how many of you have ever been a politician? It is a hellish job and one I could never do.

You're talking flamin' common sense as well Winston - YOU'LL get banned too!

[vifferman]

And National are offering $50 a week tax cuts.......the cycle goes on......
Well, I guess they had to do that. Neither party has any real answers or decent policies to offer that distinguish them from one another, so their tactics have to be scaremongering, the blame game, and offering bribes. Even if they did have some really good ideas, the average drone in Un Zud's not really interested - the bottom line is "What's in it for me?"

[Flatcap]

And National are offering $50 a week tax cuts.......the cycle goes on......

That's not a benefit - it's just stealing less of our money

[Skyryder]

Situation reversed, you'd be the first one to say that it includes all of the public officials as well, not just the government, and thus not a true reflection on the government itself... your hypocrisy is pretty transparent.



Pretty weak argument this. Stating what I would say if the sitation is reversed and then concluding that my hypocrisy is transparent.

Transparent on your fiction. Time you had a Tuis

The rest of you post is not worthy of comment.



Skyryder

[imdying]

Pretty weak argument this. Stating what I would say if the sitation is reversed and then concluding that my hypocrisy is transparent.

Transparent on your fiction. Time you had a Tuis

The rest of you post is not worthy of comment. Fortunately it wasn't written for your benefit... your unfounded vitriol is obvious so I wouldn't waste my breath ;)

You're just like your mates, there is no doubt you'd twist it to suit your means, don't think you're fooling anyone.

[MisterD]

And National are offering $50 a week tax cuts.......the cycle goes on......

There's a pretty strong economic argument that this is exactly the kind of fiscal stimulus the economy needs at the moment - just bear that in mind when you're lapping up the Cullen attacks on the basis of "we can't afford it", and "borrowing for tax cuts" and whatever other negativity they come up with.

Do you trust someone who paid 5x over the odds for his trainset? He's incompetent and the Aussies did him like a kipper.

[Skyryder]

Fortunately it wasn't written for your benefit... your unfounded vitriol is obvious so I wouldn't waste my breath ;)

You're just like your mates, there is no doubt you'd twist it to suit your means, don't think you're fooling anyone.

You quoted my post. I take that as your response to what I wrote as do most here when their posts are quoted. It was you, not me who got personal by calling me a hypocrite and this based on a fiction.

I was tempted to respond in a like manner and say that if the 'situation was reversed' and Clark or Winstone had been caught lying in the manner that Key was there would be howls of outrage but unlike you I would not insult those that have a differing political opinon than myself by useing such an arguement.


Have a happy day and think before you post if not for your benifit then for others.


Skyyrder

[imdying]

You quoted my post. I take that as your response to what I wrote as do most here when their posts are quoted. It was you, not me who got personal by calling me a hypocrite and this based on a fiction.Was quoted for context ;)


I was tempted to respond in a like manner and say that if the 'situation was reversed' and Clark or Winstone had been caught lying in the manner that Key was there would be howls of outrage but unlike you I would not insult those that have a differing political opinon than myself by using such an arguement.And yet every post you've made in this thread is an insult to people who can think for themselves... oh the irony. You forget, most of the people on here won't swallow your ramblings and conspiracy theories as facts.

[Finn]

Key will be the next PM and Skyryder will have to get a job. Ha ha.

[SPman]

Oi - get back on your big black steed and go terrorise some more workers!

[merv]

Key will be the next PM and Skyryder will have to get a job. Ha ha.

Nice to hear from you again too eh Finn where you been :sleep:

[trustme]

So the fay boy leant on Pita Sharples, the less charitable of us might consider that to be an attempt to pervert the course of justice, I can't wait for Skyryders spin on this.
Its strange that Skyryder accuses Key of being less than forthcoming. Helen knew of the loan for months & said nothing , it was the journalists fault of course because they never asked , transperancy triumphs again. Yeah Right.

[Skyryder]

Nice to hear from you again too eh Finn where you been :sleep:

Recovering from my humble pie. :killingme:killingme



Skyryder

[Patrick]

:zzzz::beer::beer: 'Bout the only thing correct in your post.

Utter rubbish. The only thing correct was :sleep: :zzzz: and :yawn:

Knowing is not lying. Big difference. As for the other two, been there and done that.

Skyryder

So when she knew, and lied, thats OK then in your book. Oh yeah, I forgot... she didn't know she was doing 180kmph on the way to the rugby... :rofl:

As for paintergate... who cares? It was for charity.

As for John KEY... been there, done that. Move on.


What you really mean is you are only dishonest if you get caught

Not quite - you are ONLY dishonest if you made a mistake, got caught and admit you made a mistake....


So the fay boy leant on Pita Sharples,

Labour leaning the big heavy on the Maori Party... Hmmmm.... Why????????

[rainman]

That's not a benefit - it's just stealing less of our money

So, just checking... roads, and policing, and defence, and trade and economic development, and healthcare, and welfare, and the rest - they're all theft by the state of your money?

Do you use any of these services, or are you such a keen little minarchist that you're entirely self-sufficient? If you do make use of these, there's an unparliamentary term starting with H that you might want to think about.

[idleidolidyll]

Despite the bullshit you read here from right wing conservative crackpots New Zealand has topped the rankings for minority investor protection in a World Bank business study.The high protection ranking helped New Zealand maintain its position as the second-easiest place in the world to do business for the third year in a row, behind Singapore.


And they say Helen Clark is anti business; good grief! shallow propaganda is sooo ridiculous

[Headbanger]

So, just checking... roads, and policing, and defence, and trade and economic development, and healthcare, and welfare, and the rest - they're all theft by the state of your money?
.

There is a difference between user pays, and taking an unwarranted amount of your hard earned money to waste on bullshit.

[Swoop]

Labour leaning the big heavy on the Maori Party... Hmmmm.... Why????????
To find some support for Winston. The Looney Labourite Sect didn't want their mate to get a shafting from parliament (trial by his peers) so they tried the heavy handed trick and sent Fat Bastard to empty Pita's fridge of pies, and then put a "suggestion" to him.

Don't you just love Liarbour.:rolleyes:

[rainman]

There is a difference between user pays, and taking an unwarranted amount of your hard earned money to waste on bullshit.

Indeed. And a bigger difference yet to theft.

[Flatcap]

So, just checking... roads, and policing, and defence, and trade and economic development, and healthcare, and welfare, and the rest - they're all theft by the state of your money?

Do you use any of these services, or are you such a keen little minarchist that you're entirely self-sufficient? If you do make use of these, there's an unparliamentary term starting with H that you might want to think about.


There is a difference between user pays, and taking an unwarranted amount of your hard earned money to waste on bullshit.

What Headbanger said

[Flatcap]

Indeed. And a bigger difference yet to theft.

Actually, you are probably correct

It's more like "demanding money with menaces"

[Headbanger]

Its extortion, plain and simple.

Don't like the shit they are pulling?, Good luck fucking with the IRD sucker.

[Max Preload]

The Berlin-based organization Transparency International, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand are perceived to be the world's least corrupt countries.

That ranking means diddly squat. Perception and reality are often worlds apart, and that's certainly the case here. Singapore being the 4th least corrupt country? Pull the other one! :rofl:


Despite the bullshit you read here from right wing conservative crackpots New Zealand has topped the rankings for minority investor protection in a World Bank business study.The high protection ranking helped New Zealand maintain its position as the second-easiest place in the world to do business for the third year in a row, behind Singapore.

Who are you attempting to stereotype as 'conservative crackpots' - people with jobs who know they can do more good with their money than any government ever could? Just because we're not all running around barefoot and stuffing our faces with tofu doesn't mean we're 'conservative'. A multi-millionaire who doesn't personally pay a cent in income tax does more good for the economy than all the minmum wagers put together.


...but for ducks sake don't vote right wing: those liars are why your wages are so low today.

My wages aren't low. In fact, they're outrageously high. As are those of my work colleagues. Should a school leaving street sweeper be paid the same or have a similar standard of living to a doctor who has studied for 8 years at his expense?.

People's wages are low because that's all they're worth. If people don't like it, I've heard upskilling works a treat.

[Robert Taylor]

Good grief! You swallowed that trite propaganda?
Both major parties have had Peters in their cabinets and Key would backpedal in a moment if it meant taking power or spending the next three years on the backburner.
The man is a liar and an opportunist.

That said, vote Green or Prpgressive but for ducks sake don't vote right wing: those liars are why your wages are so low today.

i

But they are not taking directions from Peking like comrade Clarkenstein nor do they sing ''the peoples flag is brightest red''

Is that the same party that is actually red on the inside? The only mp they had that was worth a pinch of salt ( and I do respectfully give him credit for some but not all of his views ) was Rod Donald... Not only is it possible to be conservative and compassionate but its also possible to be conservative and green. But frankly your viewpoint is so blinkered and often observed to be so self righteous you wont accept that such is possible.

[Robert Taylor]

I thought RT was being insensitive to female canines as well....

I do sincerely apologise for the very insensitive reference to female canines. However bitches that give trouble should be promptly put down.

[Robert Taylor]

You sound a bit miffed Robert, did you hit on her at a pub one night or something and she brushed you off?

I dont hit on trannies...

[MisterD]

Despite the bullshit you read here from right wing conservative crackpots New Zealand has topped the rankings for minority investor protection in a World Bank business study.The high protection ranking helped New Zealand maintain its position as the second-easiest place in the world to do business for the third year in a row, behind Singapore.


And they say Helen Clark is anti business; good grief! shallow propaganda is sooo ridiculous

Yes, it's so attractive to do business here - that's why foreign investment has dried up to a trickle under this corrupt crowd of shysters. Playing political games with Auckland aiport did way more harm to the NZ investment market than John Key owning shares in Tranzrail.

[Dilligaf]

So has anyone figured out the difference between a TRUST and an individual yet???

A trust separates ownership of assets from settlor to trustee. John Key doesn't have to declare anything as if he wasn't trustee he necessarily had no control at all over the transaction of buying and selling shares.



Oh and Skyryder.... care to comment on :
http://www.whaleoilblog.com/?q=content/did-jeanette-declare-her-conflict


Remember the $1 billion in funding, in part to subsidise home insulation, negotiated by the Green Party as part of the agreement to vote for the ETS?

Guess who owns shares in the company that makes this product????

The answer is of course Jeanette Fitzsimons, herself no stranger to owning shares in companies that benefit from sudden changes on government policy. She directly benefited by spiking Project Aqua through the Green party lobbying.

Look what Jeanette had to say about Project Aqua;

“The only practical, long-term solutions to solving our energy problems without substantially changing our lifestyle are using energy more wisely, and investing in truly renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar heating and wood waste. Certainly, the $1.2 billion spent on Aqua could buy a lot of energy efficiency.”

Yeah especially her wind technology company huh! Are all the support parties of the Labour First axis bent?

[Winston001]

So has anyone figured out the difference between a TRUST and an individual yet???

A trust separates ownership of assets from settlor to trustee. John Key doesn't have to declare anything as if he wasn't trustee he necessarily had no control at all over the transaction of buying and selling shares.

Yes you are right but its academic to most people. Besides if he is the settlor and has Power of Appointment, he's got effective control.

What MPs and public figures do in these situations is establish blind trusts. A blind trust is completely separate from the MP and normally run by financial advisors who do their own thing. The MP just gives them a lump of money from time to time and hopes it all works out.

Essentially the Spencer Trust is blind. Peters has no control or knowledge of it - which is the whole point. Unfortunately he seems to know a bit more than he has been letting on....:baby:

Excellent point about Janette Fitzsimons - forgotten she holds shares in NZ Windfarms. Mind you, that is completely consistent with her political and ethical beliefs. Even so, she shouldn't particu;larly in light of the Project Aqua comments. Hmmmm....interesting hypocrisy here.

[Skyryder]

That ranking means diddly squat. Perception and reality are often worlds apart, and that's certainly the case here. Singapore being the 4th least corrupt country? Pull the other one! :rofl:


The point that I have made is that I have found an independent orgainastion whose research disputes the widley held belief that the Government is corrupt as so many state.

Both ACT and the NAT's have been mouthing off on this for so long that now those that oppose Labour believe it.

I believe the actions of Key and his share holdings while he was the Transport spokesman for National demonstrates an act of corruption. The fact that he made no money on this in no way reduces his culperbility: he tried and lied.

Pretty clear to me where the corruption is.


Skyryder

[BIGBOSSMAN]

The point that I have made is that I have found an independent orgainastion whose research disputes the widley held belief that the Government is corrupt as so many state.

Both ACT and the NAT's have been mouthing off on this for so long that now those that oppose Labour believe it.

I believe the actions of Key and his share holdings while he was the Transport spokesman for National demonstrates an act of corruption. The fact that he made no money on this in no way reduces his culperbility: he tried and lied.

Pretty clear to me where the corruption is.


Skyryder

Buddy you are a scratched record, repeating the frantic and pathetic death throes of the end of Clarkenvania.
There is no corruption here, certainly not to the extent shown by Helen and her partner in crime Winnie anyway. And we'll also hopefully see the the back of the smug prick 'Himmler' Cullen next month as well.
Labour's reign of PC social engineering and intervention in the family home is about to end - get used to it!

[Quasievil]

So has anyone figured out the difference between a TRUST and an individual yet???

A trust separates ownership of assets from settlor to trustee. John Key doesn't have to declare anything as if he wasn't trustee he necessarily had no control at all over the transaction of buying and selling shares.



Oh and Skyryder.... care to comment on :
http://www.whaleoilblog.com/?q=content/did-jeanette-declare-her-conflict


Thats such Bullshit dude, Elephants dont use trampolines

FFS

:blink:

[MisterD]

Pretty clear to me where the corruption is.
Skyryder

Attempting to bribe a minor party to support you.
Attempting to heavy the same minor party to vote for Winston's lies.
Knowingly beaking the law and using tax payers money illegally to electioneer.
Changing the law to retrospectively legalise that rort.
Politicising the public service and stacking it with cronies.
Planning to use government departments to electioneer on beahlf of the liarbour party - until Murky Mike was sprung at the conference.
Legislating to restrict opposition campaigning against you.
More "gates" than a high country station

Yeah, it's pretty clear to me too.

We get a good rating because joe-blow public servants don't take bribes - not because the people at the top aren't bent as a three bob note.

[Skyryder]

Buddy you are a scratched record, repeating the frantic and pathetic death throes of the end of Clarkenvania.
There is no corruption here, certainly not to the extent shown by Helen and her partner in crime Winnie anyway. And we'll also hopefully see the the back of the smug prick 'Himmler' Cullen next month as well.
Labour's reign of PC social engineering and intervention in the family home is about to end - get used to it!

Well the Nats are not going to change
Bradford's bill so .............. to use your phase you 'had better get used to it.'


Scratched record or not the message is just as relevent.


I know it's a bummer but Key's shareholding dealings while spokesperson for transport amount to a higher degree of corruption than anything Clarke has done. Key's action was for personal gain.


Skyryder

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Well the Nats are not going to change
Bradford's bill so .............. to use your phase you 'had better get used to it.'


Scratched record or not the message is just as relevent.


I know it's a bummer but Key's shareholding dealings while spokesperson for transport amount to a higher degree of corruption than anything Clarke has done. Key's action was for personal gain.


Skyryder

FYI:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1744669&postcount=177

[Skyryder]

FYI:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1744669&postcount=177


:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep: 'Bout sums it up.


Skyryder

[MisterD]

I know it's a bummer but Key's shareholding dealings while spokesperson for transport amount to a higher degree of corruption than anything Clarke has done. Key's action was for personal gain.


How long a bow can you draw Skyryder? The amount of money we're talking about on that share transaction is about $20k, how much is an MP's salary, which he gives to charity anyway? How big a salary cut did JK take to become an MP?

The allegation that he deliberately used his position to make a personal gain is just stupid and illogical...but then that seems to define the left's standard of debating full stop.

[98tls]

How longs a piece of string,when it comes to politicians this countrys had that have done nothing for this country other than collect a way over the top pay check makes me think the "personal gain" thing is nothing new.

[devnull]

I'm absolutely sold now...

With sites like this one, nobody else stands a chance.
Here ya go Skyryder... :clap:

http://www.labour08.co.nr/

[Skyryder]

The allegation that he deliberately used his position to make a personal gain is just stupid and illogical...but then that seems to define the left's standard of debating full stop.


So how do you know he didn't?


Skyryder

[BIGBOSSMAN]

So how do you know he didn't?


Skyryder


So how do you know he did?


BIGBOSSMAN

[Skyryder]

So how do you know he did?


BIGBOSSMAN


Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: Labour
National leader John Key National leader John Key
Mon, 22 Sep 2008 7:40p.m.

Labour has accused John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares amid revelations the National Party leader failed to fully disclose his interests.

Mr Key's shareholding in the rail operator became an issue earlier this year when Labour claimed a conflict of interest because he had asked parliamentary questions about the Government's planned buyback of the country's
rail tracks while he still had a shareholding.

Despite his role at the time as National's associate transport spokesman, he did not disclose his shareholding.

When Mr Key was questioned on the issue this year he said his family trust had held 30,000 shares in the company, but had sold them on June 9 and June 12, 2003.

He said his questions and comments never led to any gains from the company's share value.

But Finance Minister Michael Cullen today released correspondence and share register information contradicting several of Mr Key's claims.

The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.

Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key said his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003.

But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.

"Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep," he said.

"Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total."

Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned.

The papers released by Dr Cullen show Mr Key personally bought 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in May 2003 after he had actively pursued information from the Government on the company.

He sold those shares five weeks later for $51,000 - more than double their $22,500 purchase price.

However, 50,000 shares bought by his family trust in February 2002, were sold in June 2003 at a loss of $132,000.

Dr Cullen said Mr Key should have declared his shareholding to Parliament and his failure to do so was unethical.

"John Key lied because he knew he had something to hide," he said.

"Mr Key was in fact commenting publicly on Tranz Rail, meeting with bidders for the rail track and vigorously pursuing the release of commercially relevant information all while being an undisclosed shareholder in the firm."

Dr Cullen said Mr Key had spent a lot of time attacking Prime Minister Helen Clark's credibility over the New Zealand First donations scandal, but had covered up his own actions.

"For him to have in effect grossly misled both the media and the public on this I think raises that issue of trust yet again," he told reporters.
"Clearly Mr Key was not simply not forthcoming, he actually lied."

Timeline of National leader John Key's Tranz Rail share dealings:

* February 15, 2002 - Mr Key's family trust buys 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail for $108,000;

* February 19, 2002 - the trust purchases 20,000 more Tranz Rail shares for $72,000;

* July 27, 2002 - Mr Key is elected to Parliament;

* October 30, 31, 2002 - Mr Key asks parliamentary questions relating to Tranz Rail and the future of the rail track without disclosing his shareholding;

April 9, 2003 - in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;

* April 14, 2003 - Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

* April 23, 2003 - Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;

* May 7, 2003 - Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;

* May 20, 2003 - in his role as National's associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;

* June 10, 2003 - Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;

* June 11, 2003 - under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;

* June 13, 2003 - Mr Key's family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 -- a loss of $132,000.

* June 18, 2003 - Mr Key again attacks the Government's plans to buy back the rail tracks.

* October 16, 2003 - Mr Key makes an apparent hypothetical reference in the debate over Pecuniary Interests Legislation to a possible shareholding in Tranz Rail. (end)

Again I say, that though Key lost money in no way excuses his shabby dealings. If you see something else in this.........so be it.

Skyryder

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: Labour
National leader John Key National leader John Key
Mon, 22 Sep 2008 7:40p.m.

Labour has accused John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares amid revelations the National Party leader failed to fully disclose his interests.

Mr Key's shareholding in the rail operator became an issue earlier this year when Labour claimed a conflict of interest because he had asked parliamentary questions about the Government's planned buyback of the country's
rail tracks while he still had a shareholding.

Despite his role at the time as National's associate transport spokesman, he did not disclose his shareholding.

When Mr Key was questioned on the issue this year he said his family trust had held 30,000 shares in the company, but had sold them on June 9 and June 12, 2003.

He said his questions and comments never led to any gains from the company's share value.

But Finance Minister Michael Cullen today released correspondence and share register information contradicting several of Mr Key's claims.

The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.

Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key said his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003.

But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.

"Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep," he said.

"Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total."

Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned.

The papers released by Dr Cullen show Mr Key personally bought 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in May 2003 after he had actively pursued information from the Government on the company.

He sold those shares five weeks later for $51,000 - more than double their $22,500 purchase price.

However, 50,000 shares bought by his family trust in February 2002, were sold in June 2003 at a loss of $132,000.

Dr Cullen said Mr Key should have declared his shareholding to Parliament and his failure to do so was unethical.

"John Key lied because he knew he had something to hide," he said.

"Mr Key was in fact commenting publicly on Tranz Rail, meeting with bidders for the rail track and vigorously pursuing the release of commercially relevant information all while being an undisclosed shareholder in the firm."

Dr Cullen said Mr Key had spent a lot of time attacking Prime Minister Helen Clark's credibility over the New Zealand First donations scandal, but had covered up his own actions.

"For him to have in effect grossly misled both the media and the public on this I think raises that issue of trust yet again," he told reporters.
"Clearly Mr Key was not simply not forthcoming, he actually lied."

Timeline of National leader John Key's Tranz Rail share dealings:

* February 15, 2002 - Mr Key's family trust buys 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail for $108,000;

* February 19, 2002 - the trust purchases 20,000 more Tranz Rail shares for $72,000;

* July 27, 2002 - Mr Key is elected to Parliament;

* October 30, 31, 2002 - Mr Key asks parliamentary questions relating to Tranz Rail and the future of the rail track without disclosing his shareholding;

April 9, 2003 - in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;

* April 14, 2003 - Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

* April 23, 2003 - Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;

* May 7, 2003 - Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;

* May 20, 2003 - in his role as National's associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;

* June 10, 2003 - Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;

* June 11, 2003 - under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;

* June 13, 2003 - Mr Key's family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 -- a loss of $132,000.

* June 18, 2003 - Mr Key again attacks the Government's plans to buy back the rail tracks.

* October 16, 2003 - Mr Key makes an apparent hypothetical reference in the debate over Pecuniary Interests Legislation to a possible shareholding in Tranz Rail. (end)

Again I say, that though Key lost money in no way excuses his shabby dealings. If you see something else in this.........so be it.

Skyryder


:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep: 'Bout sums it up.

BIGBOSSMAN

[Jantar]

Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: ........... If you see something else in this.........so be it.

Skyryder

Yes, he did trade in Transrail shares when he shouldn't have. Yes, he got caught out. But when confronted with the facts, he admitted it. End of story.

Labour and NZ first, when confronted with dodgy practices, have denied, them, blamed someone else, or changed the law to make what they did legal after the fact.

Key may have done wrong, but compared to Labour he comes across as a saint.

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Last time I checked the news I found no mention of John Key under investigation by the SFO. He's bloody clean as matey :niceone:

[MisterD]

So how do you know he didn't?


Skyryder

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Which is most likely?

a) John Key took a huge pay cut to become an MP (and gives the majority of that salary to charity) so he can insider trade to the tune of $20k on Tranzrail shares.

b) John Key had a large portfolio of New Zealand shares managed by his broker. Sometime around the end of his first year as a n00b MP he realises this might cause conflict of interest issues as he becomes more senior and dumps all his NZ shares.


Point of fact on your later timeline post, he did not lie and say he only had 30,000 shares. It's a subtle, but significant difference, but when he was accused by Liarbour of owning 30,000 shares he admitted it and said he had sold them before whatever significant date - which was absolutely true.

He then probably went away and found that he'd had more, and at this point made the mistake of deciding to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Hinny]

We need to get beyond that and our representatives are the Fourth estate = the media. If our journalists refused to be drawn into the mud slinging - (such as Keys ownership of shares in 2003 for Pete's sake!!! :wacko: ) and asked questions about the balance of trade, emigration to Australia etc, we might, just might, start to talk about some important stuff.

Our representatives are actually the Politicians.
The mud slinging is coming from the media. How often do we hear that the economy is in trouble?
Latest published terms of trade are the best in Thirty Four years! That's the reality.
The thing with emigration to Australia is that it can be viewed as beneficial to both countries. Raises the average IQ of both.

[Skyryder]

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Which is most likely?

a) John Key took a huge pay cut to become an MP (and gives the majority of that salary to charity) so he can insider trade to the tune of $20k on Tranzrail shares.

b) John Key had a large portfolio of New Zealand shares managed by his broker. Sometime around the end of his first year as a n00b MP he realises this might cause conflict of interest issues as he becomes more senior and dumps all his NZ shares.


Point of fact on your later timeline post, he did not lie and say he only had 30,000 shares. It's a subtle, but significant difference, but when he was accused by Liarbour of owning 30,000 shares he admitted it and said he had sold them before whatever significant date - which was absolutely true.

He then probably went away and found that he'd had more, and at this point made the mistake of deciding to let sleeping dogs lie.


He lied on TV One. "30000 max No 100000. Yep." All NZ saw it but you.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Which is most likely?



He lied.



Why? becasue he had something to hide.



Skyryder.

[Hitcher]

He lied on TV One. "30000 max. No 100000. Yep." All NZ saw it but you.

So saying something, immediately realising that what you said was wrong and then immediately correcting what you said is a "lie"?

That's not the definition I use for lying. Where I come from a lie is the act of being deliberately untruthful.

[RiderInBlack]

He lied.



Why? becasue he had something to hide.
Yes he did.
Yes he had.
But then he is a Politician, that's what they do for a living:rolleyes:
Don't know which I find funnier:

A Politician saying another Politician can't be trusted because they have been CAUGHT at a lie.
People getting defensive about their Politician, when it is obvious that they have done wrong and have lied.
Or that some people think that their Politician is truthful and doesn't lie (well not as much as the Politician they don't like).
Think about it people. How many Politicians would have got ya vote if they really told ya the truth about what they are going ta do once they are in power. There is always something unpopular that needs ta be done to run a Country. SO they have to be good liers to get in. They'll promise ya Roses ta get in and once they are in ya get the Thorns. All we get ta choose is which Lier we have.

[ManDownUnder]

That's not the definition I use for lying. Where I come from a lie is the act of being deliberately untruthful.

He stood up said "I was wrong", opened for questions, appeared on National TV in the absence of Clark and Winnie so he'd get full attention of the interview at a time when Clark and Winnie are ducking for cover every chance they get!

The bastard - AND he took a substantial paycut so he could have a conflict of interest.

Or - he didn't remember all the detail of a small part of his portfolio and tried to appease a reporter when asked something out of the blue.

SR - I hope this is a troll.

[ManDownUnder]

Just to add fuel to this fire - a major problem the more advanced life forms face is that we deal in concepts unfamiliar (therefore "dodgy" or "wrong") to the less advanced life forms, so conveying a message to the less educated is never going to be successful - especially in a soundbite.

Sadly the majority of votes comes from the latter group.

[Skyryder]

Yes, he did trade in Transrail shares when he shouldn't have. Yes, he got caught out. But when confronted with the facts, he admitted it. End of story.

Labour and NZ first, when confronted with dodgy practices, have denied, them, blamed someone else, or changed the law to make what they did legal after the fact.

Key may have done wrong, but compared to Labour he comes across as a saint.


I’ve covered much of this argument in earlier posts and at the risk of repetition: yes Key was caught out, but his admission implies no honesty or integrity on his part. His admission was based solely to reduce political damage as the facts were indisputable.

You claim that Key’s transgressions on this matter are saint like in comparison to Labour and NZ First. As I consider you one of the more intelligent posters here on KB I’ll spend some time on this in an effort to reject this fallacy.

There is no doubt that what you call dodgy practices are that when seen from the public perspective. We the public base both our ethics and integrity from the perspective in which we live. We form our opinions either right or wrong from this environment. Politicians and that’s all politicians do not have the same luxury that we have. Much of their posturing and ethics are based on ‘political considerations.’ I for one do not think for one minute that Clarke would have positioned herself as she has with NZ First should she have been in opposition, no more than Hide would have complained to the speaker should Key have been in the position that Peters now finds himself in. Clarke’s dodgy practices have been tempered with political considerations. Considerations that we the public do not have to contend with. We make our judgments on our political ideology. A few go deeper and take into account the political considerations that political decisions are based on.

Key’s crime, for want of a better word was carried out on a personal level and not a political one. That’s the dividing difference between the two issues NZ First (donation) or in Clarks case many.

I’ve covered Peters actions in other posts and this is a NZ First issue and only a Labour by one association so will not go off on any tangents with this other than to say Peters was found guilty on a the basis of ‘probability’ only, not fact, and this again divides the two issues in respect of Labour/NZ First practices and Key’s where culpability exists on documents and Keys verbal admissions. Probability is not an issue here as it is with Peters but fact is in respect to Key’s.

These are the three issues that I find the most distasteful and suggest a man lacking in both moral and ethical behavior.

1 Key’s hyprocasy on slagging Clarke and Labour for their silence on their knowledge of Glen’s donation while at the same time keeping quiet on the number of shares that he held in Tranz Rail.

2 Actively trading with a transport company while Nationals spokesman for Transport.

3 Blaming others for ‘not’ asking how many shares that he held in Tranz Rail when his word was taken by the general public as truth.

I find 3 the most despicable of all. It’s one thing to remain silent in the House but to lie to the general public in the course of a TV interview is not the action of a saint and he raises himself no higher by admitting his guilt when confronted with his lie.

His guilt was admitted soly for the reason so as to reduce his ‘public’ sentence This is no different from same admission from the dock; sentence reduction. Saint??

I don’t think so.





Skyryder

[rodimus]

Call him whatever you like, John Key still gets my vote.

NZ Politics is very simple.

Vote John Key & vote democracy.

Otherwise, Vote for Red Helen.

[RiderInBlack]

Call him whatever you like, John Key still gets my vote.

NZ Politics is very simple.

Vote John Key & vote democracy.

Otherwise, Vote for Red Helen.So ya really believe that:rolleyes: God people are soo gullible and naive.

[rodimus]

Correction - The people of New Zealand are actually - So misinformed.

It is the US members of congress that refer to Helen as "Red Helen".

Why do you think Hiliary Clintons joke four months ago was: "If a nuclear holocaust happened tomorrow, only two things would survive. Cockroaches & Helen Clark".

[rodimus]

For anyone that understands politics, they'll understand that the scrapping of the Electoral finance act and the referendum for the reverting to "first past the post" is vital to democracy. That is the National stance.

The complete opposite to the Labour value system and their self suited policies brought into law by methods that bypass the peoples voice process.
Both the Anti Smacking law and the Electoral Finance Bill were passed by Labour when the people they are voted to represent, heavily opposed them.

[Hitcher]

God people are soo gullible and naive.
That is exactly Rodimus' point.

[Winston001]

Our representatives are actually the Politicians.
The mud slinging is coming from the media. How often do we hear that the economy is in trouble?
Latest published terms of trade are the best in Thirty Four years! That's the reality.
The thing with emigration to Australia is that it can be viewed as beneficial to both countries. Raises the average IQ of both.

In terms of watching and assessing the politicians, we rely on the independant media. If they ask the right questions and focus on serious issues, we become well informed.

Instead journalists are taught to "beat up" stories, find a salacious edge, any hint of scandal true or not, and keep following it. Canny politicians like Helen Clark play the media like a violin by feeding them tid bits of nonsense "allegations" which usefully distracts attention away from real issues of government.

Yes our terms of trade are the best they have been since 1974. Long time between drinks. Why didn't this happen in 2003 and continue every quarter since than - because that is when our economy boomed.

Instead we reach almost a balance of trade, just as an oil crisis hits, and a world economic crisis on top of that. Fonterra have just announced decreased payouts. Sadly its downhill again for NZ for a while.

[SPman]

Yes he did.
Yes he had.
But then he is a Politician, that's what they do for a living:rolleyes:
Don't know which I find funnier:

A Politician saying another Politician can't be trusted because they have been CAUGHT at a lie.
People getting defensive about their Politician, when it is obvious that they have done wrong and have lied.
Or that some people think that their Politician is truthful and doesn't lie (well not as much as the Politician they don't like).

Think about it people. How many Politicians would have got ya vote if they really told ya the truth about what they are going ta do once they are in power. There is always something unpopular that needs ta be done to run a Country. SO they have to be good liers to get in. They'll promise ya Roses ta get in and once they are in ya get the Thorns. All we get ta choose is which Lier we have.

You must spread more rep, etc etc....

They're all shysters - except guys like Rod Donald and he kicked the bucket - probably in despair!

Key will get in, aided by the Maori party, (screams of red neck outrage), who will keep the Nats very slightly honest until the next election when we can go through the whole process again.....

Oh joy! :rolleyes:

[RiderInBlack]

referendum for the reverting to "first past the post" is vital to democracy.
OK asking the "people" if they want to go to a more un-Democratic is democratic:rolleyes: Don't get me wrong. MMP is hard to deal with, BUT (and it is a BIG BUT) it is a lot more representative of the "People" than FPP, which saw a Party with a minority get in because they had more Seats. I would not think any Party wanting to go back to a voting system that is not representative of the Majority of the voters as being for "Democracy".
I am definity not for going back to FPP dark ages.

[Hitcher]

MMP is hard to deal with, BUT (and it is a BIG BUT) it is a lot more representative of the "People" than FPP, which saw a Party with a minority get in because they had more Seats. I would not think any Party wanting to go back to a voting system that is not representative of the Majority of the voters as being for "Democracy".

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected?

At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

[Winston001]

At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation ......

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

I wasn't particularly convinced FPP was bad but I can live with proportional representation. MMP is not the right option but it was chosen because the electorate could grasp the concept.

Single Transferable Vote - STV - http://www.id-performance.com/obj14/obj14_Right.jpg is IMHO the best method. It looks complicated so it probably won't be adopted but gives the fairest result.

The problem with FPP is a minority party can have wide support but never enter Parliament. MMP etc allows entry and coalition allows power. Even not in coalition, a minor party still has the benefit of a public platform to raise issues from. Look at the milage Rodney Hide and Peter Sharples are able to get.

[Hitcher]

MMP is not the right option but it was chosen because the electorate could grasp the concept.

Not the New Zealand electorate, particularly those people (and there are some because I've met them) who hate Labour but like the Greens...

[Skyryder]

You must spread more rep, etc etc....

They're all shysters - except guys like Rod Donald and he kicked the bucket - probably in despair!


Jeez you got a short memory. Donald used the Alliance to get himself and the Greens into Parliment then promptly left. Without Anderton's political skills in putting together the Alliance the Greens would still turning the compost heap.

Skyryder

[ManDownUnder]

blah blah blah politics... blah blah blah election...

[Skyryder]

I wasn't particularly convinced FPP was bad but I can live with proportional representation. MMP is not the right option but it was chosen because the electorate could grasp the concept.

Single Transferable Vote - STV - http://www.id-performance.com/obj14/obj14_Right.jpg is IMHO the best method. It looks complicated so it probably won't be adopted but gives the fairest result.

The problem with FPP is a minority party can have wide support but never enter Parliament. MMP etc allows entry and coalition allows power. Even not in coalition, a minor party still has the benefit of a public platform to raise issues from. Look at the milage Rodney Hide and Peter Sharples are able to get.




There is some truth in what you suggest that MMP was the easiest option for the public to understand but that is only part of the story. The whole process of the electoral reform was based on the fact that under FFP a truly representative Parliament based on the number of votes that each party received was not possible as you state. The allocation of seats in the house was based on the number of electorate seats that each party won not the number of votes that each party received. STV is and I repeat is a complicated method that uses algorithms to allocate discarded votes that do not reach the threshold, to the next candidate in line. Manual counting and checking is a nightmare and this does not take into account any challenges to the vote count.

MMP was voted by the majority on the bases that this system delivered a Parliament giving those parties who reached the threshold a proportion of the seats that their party received in the election. This was the fundamental purpose of the electoral reform. To produce a Parliment based on the percentage vote that each party won with the proviso that there needed to be 5 percent threshold to gain a list seat.

The issue on this is as I see it, do we want a Parliament that delivers seats to a party based on the proportion of votes received or do we want a system where the candidate that you did not vote for receives your vote due to the fact that his total votes did not reach the threshold. That is STV your Single Vote is Transferred to a candidate that you did not vote for.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

So saying something, immediately realising that what you said was wrong and then immediately correcting what you said is a "lie"?

That's not the definition I use for lying. Where I come from a lie is the act of being deliberately untruthful.

No he only 'corrected' after the journo questioned his answer and Key immedialty realised that she 'knew' he was lying.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

...... Without Anderton's political skills in putting together the Alliance the Greens would still turning the compost heap.

Skyryder

Finally, a political concept that we agree with. :jerry:

IMO Anderton is one of the few politicians with integrety, and he still stands for the values that Labour stood for 40 years ago. I may not agree with his politics anymore, but I can still respect his contributions to parliament. That is something I cannot say about most other politicians.

[Hinny]

... the bullshit you read here from right wing conservative crackpots ...


And so many of them.
I have been pondering the reason for the predominance of these people on KB.
I am still at a loss as to why there should be so many. Is it because they are the type of people that are vocal. Like talk-back radio fans.
The vitriol and name calling is really disheartening.
New Zealand is a society worthy of better people than that.
Perhaps we need a FIFO policy of emigration.
Fit in or Fuck off.

[Hinny]

...
Yes our terms of trade are the best they have been since 1974. Long time between drinks. Why didn't this happen in 2003 and continue every quarter since than - because that is when our economy boomed.

Instead we reach almost a balance of trade, just as an oil crisis hits, and a world economic crisis on top of that. .. Sadly its downhill again for NZ for a while.

Our terms of trade have been less than ideal because the people who earn money for this country are few and the people who buy stuff from overseas are many.
The high exchange rate and high rate of employment has meant we are a society still on a spending spree.
Our economy boomed under a Labour government. Just as it has under every Labour govt. we have had.
Our economy has gone downhill under every National govt. we have had.
Well that is according to the Statistics dept......bunch of Leftie Pinko communist civil servants.
If the polls are indicative of the outcome of the election then sadly it may well be downhill for NZ. for a while.

[Flatcap]

No he only 'corrected' after the journo questioned his answer and Key immedialty realised that she 'knew' he was lying.

Skyryder

It doesn't really matter. As that bastion of moderation, Bob Jones, said in his editorial today:

"In attacking Mr Key's failure to reveal his correct number of Tranz Rail shares, Labour missed the salient point. The number of shares doesn't matter. What does is the revelation of Mr Key's abysmal financial acumen by investing in such a dog".

[rodimus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSF9Lq1-NTU

Very enjoyable.

Now, To all you Idiots out there. Stop voting your favourite colour and start voting against the political mis-representation.

[Hinny]

When the shouting guy from DISCOUNT TYRES decides to take a break from fronting his ads John Key could fill in.

[Hinny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSF9Lq1-NTU

Very enjoyable.
.

Connect with John at jonhnkey.co.nz

jonkey.....

brought a smile to my face.

[Hinny]

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected?

At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

You said a mouthful there Hitcher.
Minority Governments sometimes happened under FPP.
I would have thought it was the majority of times since ....Geez I can't remember back past....yesterday.....1960 something... Certainly there were a lot of elections where Labour got the majority vote yet remained out of POWER for a long time before the election f the third Labour government.

The cool thing that the current Labour govt. did, I believe, was produce their pledge card.
It said what it was going to do... and it did it. I've seen commentators say they achieved 80% of their pledges. In spite of the fact that they had to work in a coalition Comrade Klerk was able, in fact, to get through 100% of her pledges.
National would have found themselves in a more munificent or magnanimous playground had they been elected since they only had two announced policies at the last election. Lower chance of failure to deliver.

Who voted for Comrade Brash. Certainly not 'the people'. He was a failed political candidate. Never elected because I guess the people who had the opportunity to make him an MP knew him. He was promoted as a list MP because he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. The fact that he was abysmal in that role seemed to have eluded the Nats and indeed the people of NZ. I was amused to see him criticising his successor . FFS the country boomed after they had got rid of him and Bollard took over. And now we have his successor. A second term MP.....
It's a funny old world 'aint it?

[riffer]

The cool thing that the current Labour govt. did, I believe, was produce their pledge card.

Somewhat ironic choice of example there Hinny, considering they ended up having to produce some, shall we say unanticipated, legislation which retrospectively legitimised their illicit misuse of funds producing it...

[Skyryder]

It doesn't really matter. As that bastion of moderation, Bob Jones, said in his editorial today:

"In attacking Mr Key's failure to reveal his correct number of Tranz Rail shares, Labour missed the salient point. The number of shares doesn't matter. What does is the revelation of Mr Key's abysmal financial acumen by investing in such a dog".


Yes I read that but Labour could hardly agree with Jones's sentiment when they bought Tranz Rail.


A salient point that Jones missed along with Keys' silence.


Still he makes a good 'hit' on occasions


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected?

At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

I agree with you on the mandate thing. But it was both Labour and National who refused to inform the public of their manifesto with a coalition partner. The Alliance led by Anderton was the only party who promoted this idea under the first MMP election. Labour refused and the Nats refused with Winstone. Effectively this is not a flaw in the System but an abuse by those standing for office.

The difference being is that under FPP the total votes cast will not produce a Parliament representative of the total votes cast in the election. The Parliament produced is that in which the party won the most electorates and a Government. MMP’s main purpose was to produce a Parliament that is representative of the number of votes that each party received. This is the very foundation that opponents of MMP refuse to accept and cite the system as anti democratic when in fact it is the very opposite. MMP was never designed to Produce a Government and this needs to be clearly understood unless a party won a majority where it did not need a partner. At the time of the referendum this was touted as a method that would put the brakes on any extreme legislation that the Government of the day never had a mandate for. Personally I never believed in this myself but that is another story.

There is no doubt that what you say in respect of disgruntled members of other parties has some truth but the reality is that in most cases with a few exceptions they do not make the grade.

Party lists. Political parties are no more than a registered organization in which any member of the public can join. If you wish to stand on a list or be part of the selection process there is no law to stop you. But you do need to be a member of the party as you would with any orgaisation.
The difference being with political orgaisations is that you do not need to be a member to vote but you do need to be a member to stand under it's banner.


Skyryder

[idb]

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected? At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?Because it represents the views and intentions of the electorate that voted for the parties involved in the coalition.



While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?
Whatever...the representation is still proportional to the vote(excepting the 5% threshold without seat thingy).

[RiderInBlack]

I wasn't particularly convinced FPP was bad but I can live with proportional representation. MMP is not the right option but it was chosen because the electorate could grasp the concept.

Single Transferable Vote - STV - http://www.id-performance.com/obj14/obj14_Right.jpg is IMHO the best method. It looks complicated so it probably won't be adopted but gives the fairest result.Yep STV was the one for me, but the "Sheep" went with MMP because the advertising was better (and the Pollies were behind it).
FPP sucked a big Kumera for any swing voter stuck in a Labour or Nat Strong Hold Electorate (like I was in Whangarei). It basically discounted our vote, leaving us without a voice. SO NO I DO NOT THINK FPP IS DEMOCRATIC OR GIVES PEOPLE A FAIR VOICE:angry2:.

[idb]

Yep STV was the one for me, but the "Sheep" went with MMP because the advertising was better (and the Pollies were behind it).
FPP sucked a big Kumera for any swing voter stuck in a Labour or Nat Strong Hold Electorate (like I was in Whangarei). It basically discounted our vote, leaving us without a voice. SO NO I DO NOT THINK FPP IS DEMOCRATIC OR GIVES PEOPLE A FAIR VOICE:angry2:.

Baaaaaaaaaa!!!!

[Winston001]

Our terms of trade have been less than ideal because the people who earn money for this country are few and the people who buy stuff from overseas are many.

Yep absolutely true. Where we differ is that I think Labour have squandered the best economic conditions since the early 1950s to widen our production base. They have been too focused on social engineering.



The high exchange rate and high rate of employment has meant we are a society still on a spending spree.

Mmmm...the exchange rate is way below what it was in the 1970s - and we functioned then. High simply means our $ is valued more than it was in the 1990s.


Our economy boomed under a Labour government. Just as it has under every Labour govt. we have had.

Really? What about Nordmeyer's govt? What about the Kirk/Rowling years? In fact we've had sod all Labour governments since Michael Joseph Savage, generally NZ has chosen centre-right Parliaments.


Our economy has gone downhill under every National govt. we have had.
Well that is according to the Statistics dept......bunch of Leftie Pinko communist civil servant.

Link please?

Look - I mustn't play games. We can't blame any government directly for periods of economic strength and weakness. NZ is totally reliant on trade with the globe and if prices are up - great - and when they are down........or an oil crisis hits, as under Norman Kirk - well, we can't blame the government, even though we want to.

[idb]

.......we can't blame the government, even though we want to.


Who can we blame then...there must be someone responsible...point them out...put them on the front page of the Sunday Star Times?!!!

[scumdog]

Our terms of trade have been less than ideal because the people who earn money for this country are few and the people who buy stuff from overseas are many.
The high exchange rate and high rate of employment has meant we are a society still on a spending spree.
.

So... when our dollar is worth jack-shit and our cockies are then making so many Kiwi pesos per US $ how do they win when all the gear they need has to come from overseas..like the US...where the product costs so any more Kiwi peso??

[Winston001]

Originally Posted by idleidolidyll http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/bgold/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1743501#post1743501)
... the bullshit you read here from right wing conservative crackpots ...



And so many of them.
I have been pondering the reason for the predominance of these people on KB.
I am still at a loss as to why there should be so many. Is it because they are the type of people that are vocal. Like talk-back radio fans.
The vitriol and name calling is really disheartening.
New Zealand is a society worthy of better people than that.
Perhaps we need a FIFO policy of emigration.
Fit in or Fuck off.

LOL guys :woohoo:

I find it quite refreshing because the media seem to be left-biased so its good to see some right-wing views. Not that I agree with everything but you are correct - there do seem to be independant minded people among bikers who do not like being told by the State what to think and what they must not do.

FWIW I can't be bothered with NBR because I find it too unbalanced to the right. Moderation in all things. ;)

[scumdog]

LOL guys :woohoo:

I find it quite refreshing because the media seem to be left-biased so its good to see some right-wing views. Not that I agree with everything but you are correct - there do seem to be independant minded people among bikers who do not like being told by the State what to think and what they must not do.

FWIW I can't be bothered with NBR because I find it too unbalanced to the right. Moderation in all things. ;)

Fark...I work for the state and STILL don't think they are right.

[Hinny]

Mmmm...the exchange rate is way below what it was in the 1970s - and we functioned then. High simply means our $ is valued more than it was in the 1990s.

Fixed exchange rate. Early seventies were very depressed. Record unemployment levels.etc. Tough times.



Really? What about Nordmeyer's govt? What about the Kirk/Rowling years? In fact we've had sod all Labour governments since Michael Joseph Savage, generally NZ has chosen centre-right Parliaments.

Nordmeyer's govt. brought us out of the Great Depression.
The Kirk Rowling years were the best we had until now. When they were booted out of office (thanks Saatchi and Saatchi) we had record overseas reserves, Zero unemployment etc. The country was booming in spite of having to weather Opec tripling the price of oil overnight. National turned that around really fast. Record unemployment and zero overseas reserves by the time they were kicked out. Debt levels that had us selling the family silver to keep our heads above water. Remember the halting of all foreign exchange dealings as the country faced bankruptcy and the opening of the books by the incoming govt. to show just how big a hole Muldoon and co had dug for us.


Look - I mustn't play games. We can't blame any government directly for periods of economic strength and weakness. NZ is totally reliant on trade with the globe and if prices are up - great - and when they are down........or an oil crisis hits, as under Norman Kirk - well, we can't blame the government, even though we want to.

Periods of economic strength have in fact come from govt. actions. Witness Brian Talboys pioneering markets around the world for our agricultural sector. The Russian market became our biggest wool buyer. The Iraqi market became our biggest sheep meat buyer. The declaration of a Nuclear free NZ has paid big dividends for this country. Each of these would not, by their own declaration, have been possible with a National govt.
And two of them are now gone and if the Nats got their way the third would be gone by lunchtime.

Here's a good link.
http://www.thehollowmen.co.nz/film/trailer.shtml

[Hinny]

So... when our dollar is worth jack-shit and our cockies are then making so many Kiwi pesos per US $ how do they win when all the gear they need has to come from overseas..like the US...where the product costs so any more Kiwi peso??

Firstly not all the gear they need has to come from overseas. We have a fantastic agricultural manufacturing sector here.

Secondly there are only 150,000 people involved in agriculture..... and still producing the majority of our export receipts. They would have to spend an awful lot of money to exceed that which the rest of us collectively spend. How many of us earn even a single brass razoo from overseas. We feed off each other.
Therin lies the key to future wealth and glory. Concentrate on those areas of endeavour where we have a world wide comparative advantage. Forget about trying to compete in labour markets with third world countries. Bill Birch's Employment Contract Act... FFS who wants to compete with the $2 a day 50% of the world earns? Buy our stuff on the best markets not just from NZ.
Oh wait, isn't that what the Fourth Labour govt. brought in. The problem was they left out a vital ingredient in the formula for success and that is reducing the population.
Oh wait, isn't that what Winnie wanted?
A population of 1.5 million people is large enough to reap the benefits of economies of scale and small enough to avoid the disadvantages of dis economies of scale. The ratio of producers to consumers increases and the country booms.
Imagine half the cars and trucks on our roads. Half the cops...:innocent:
NZ would be a bikers paradise.
The fishing would be a hell of a lot better too.

[Swoop]

FPP sucked a big Kumera for any swing voter stuck in a Labour or Nat Strong Hold Electorate (like I was in Whangarei). It basically discounted our vote, leaving us without a voice. SO NO I DO NOT THINK FPP IS DEMOCRATIC OR GIVES PEOPLE A FAIR VOICE:angry2:
We agree on this point RIB!:hug:

[mowgli]

Cunt Key?
Ladies night, free drinks?

[McJim]

This thread fails to deliver. Where is the magic mechanism for opening vaginas?

:rofl:

[Swoop]

This thread fails to deliver. Where is the magic mechanism for opening vaginas?

:rofl:
<tencharacters>

[Skyryder]

This thread fails to deliver. Where is the magic mechanism for opening vaginas?

:rofl:




There isn't one. The title was a typo. :Oops: Should have been Cut Key From Parliment but I thought the typo looked better.

True or False ??




Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Oh and Skyryder.... care to comment on :
http://www.whaleoilblog.com/?q=content/did-jeanette-declare-her-conflict




I've only just notice your post on this. I have no information on this other than what I have read from the link. I would need further information from a more independent source than from Whaleoil to make an informed opinion on this as whether there is or is not a conflict of interest. However from what little I do know I shall try and comment on.


First of all I am not a supporter of the Greens and my comments should not be interpreted as such.

The main difference that I see is not the possible conflict of interest but one of shall we say philosophical credibility. Key was engaging in a trade when he was aware of the Governments intention of a buyback to which Key was opposed. And this is fundamental point of difference. Fitzsimmons on the other hand held shares in a company that was consistent with her philosophy. Now I agree that there is a difference where one was trading in the knowledge that the shares held was going to be purchased by the Government and share held on the base of a philosophical agreement with the product e.g. wind farm technology. Now comes the tricky part. Has the company benefited and has the share price increased because of Fitzsimmons opposition to Project Aqua? If the answer is yes and I would need to know that benefit was a direct result of the Greens and more important the govt. policy and this would need to be pretty clear, not an opinion, then I would agree that there is a conflict of interest. No doubt. But you would need to show this; not someone’s opinion on this matter such as a blog known for it’s anti Labour stance.

I along with many others have no doubt that there may well have been some ‘dodgy dealings by both sides of House on this sorta thing. This in no way lessons Key’s guilt in this. He’s just got a bigger profile and as a leader should show further intelligence than what we have seen to date.

Skyryder

[Patrick]

There isn't one. The title was a typo. :Oops: Should have been Cut Key From Parliment but I thought the typo looked better.

True or False ??




Skyryder

You are lying...!!!!

Bring the rope over to this really high hanging tree fellas....

[Hitcher]

What I find interesting about Labour Party supporters is that theirs are the only roadside election hoardings that seem to escape unscathed.

[carver]

i agree...
the man has been a spineless cock sucker from the start.

but most of you think the govt should own buisness, so stop your bitching when they fuck you over for their own ends

National = just as socialist as labour

Libertarianz

[Laava]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:981H4ktnFGfuLM:http://onthedailybaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/chastitybelt_300.jpg

edit; oops! just read what the thread is about!

[RiderInBlack]

What I find interesting about Labour Party supporters is that theirs are the only roadside election hoardings that seem to escape unscathed.
So what are ya trying ta say there Hitcher<_< Not that I care.

[Hinny]

What I find interesting about Labour Party supporters is that theirs are the only roadside election hoardings that seem to escape unscathed.
Not in Orakei.

[Dilligaf]

What I find interesting about Labour Party supporters is that theirs are the only roadside election hoardings that seem to escape unscathed.

Who needs to damage Labour's signs? They tell us all we need to know.
At least with this one, they are truthful with their advertising...

[Scouse]

My biggest problem with Labour is that they opened up the border gates, Otherwise they probably would have got my vote this year.

[Hitcher]

My biggest problem with Labour is that they opened up the boarder gates, Otherwise they probably would have got my vote this year.

A right of any property owner has always been the right to rent out all or part of their property. Labour has made no changes at all in this regard. If you've got a tenant you want to get rid of, don't blame the government.

[idb]

A right of any property owner has always been the right to rent out all or part of their property. Labour has made no changes at all in this regard. If you've got a tenant you want to get rid of, don't blame the government.

I thought he was still doing the "Talk Like A Pirate Day" thing.