Conspiracy Theories

February 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm by David Farrar

A good column by Ben Thomas and David Young in :

The fact that National hasn’t announced plans to close schools, slash health funding and turf civil servants out of work is evidence in itself, to these conspiracy theorists, that National has a secret agenda. Forget everything that the Tories say; they have a hidden master plan plain to anyone who pays their $10-a-year Labour party membership.

Katherine Rich isn’t quitting to be with her kids; she’s spooked by the neo-liberal policies of National. John Key isn’t really a centrist; he’s in bed with murky financial backers.

And John Key plans to cut everyone’s wages!

They also make an astute column on the affair:

Although Clark suffers the indignity of having to explain Glenn’s comments to the media, there are no accusations that she has enjoyed the cheery billionaire’s hospitality or swapped ideas over pasta.

The bigger damage is to those who argue that “Hollow Men” run the National Party. That narrative hinges on the idea that any business or rich person’s interference in politics must be malevolent or nefarious. 

Of course it is only those who donate to right wing parties who are malevolent and nefarious!

Tags: , , , , ,

65 Responses to “Conspiracy Theories”

  1. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Well as of today, the plan – ‘back to the 90s’ or not, is still hidden. Just depends on when they’re going to reveal them doesn’t it!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    of course there is..!

    (there always has been…those ‘murky’/anonymous/money-laundered financiers don’t fork out a couple of million bucks for nought..eh..?..)

    and..

    of course he is..!..he is one of them..!

    ‘hollow-men’..!..’hollow-men’..!..people..!

    it’s all there..!

    is ,this load of spin meant to make us believe not only that ‘the deal’ isn’t in/sewed-up this tiime..?

    but that the nefarious doings/lies/bullshit fed to us..as detailed in ‘the hollow-men’..of the events of 2005..

    didn’t actually happen..?

    whoar..!

    really going for ‘te big lie’ on this one..eh..?

    heh-heh..!..yagottalaff..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    So you’re saying despite having pretty much exactly the same crew as in 2005 the Nats have had a road to damascus moment and converted to centrist politics? Pull the other one Dave.

    What’s changed is they lost the election and have decided to play the centrist game because they know they can’t win on Brash’s policies. The ideology and the agenda are still in place, whether they’d get to exercise it in government is a different story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    (there always has been…those ‘murky’/anonymous/money-laundered financiers don’t fork out a couple of million bucks for nought..eh..?..)

    Just because Labours doners expect something in return for their donations does not mean Nationals do.

    ‘hollow-men’..!..’hollow-men’..!..people..!

    Deluded conspiracy theories put forward by a someone who is either in receipt of stolen documents, or has based their book on forged documents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    So you’re saying despite having pretty much exactly the same crew as in 2005 the Nats have had a road to damascus moment and converted to centrist politics? Pull the other one Dave.

    What’s changed is they lost the election and have decided to play the centrist game because they know they can’t win on Brash’s policies. The ideology and the agenda are still in place, whether they’d get to exercise it in government is a different story.

    Strange Tane the way you are talking, you’d think it was Labour polling over 50%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    It’s an interesting line of thinking that Thomas and Young highlight. The “the more you don’t say anything about your secret plan then more we can be certain it exists” school of thought.

    The danger is that as soon as you give the theory any credence by pointing out that it’s lunacy, that only confirms you’re part of the conspiracy!

    I’d encountered this previously in politics but it had hithertofore been confined to the lunatic fringe – like the wild eyed long-haired nutter and his friend with the facial twitch and bullet-holed windscreen who decided they’d “help out” my 1993 campaign.

    When I tried politely suggesting that banging on doors in the middle of the night and growling “You gonna vote for Rex, or what?” at startled householders wasn’t doing a lot of good, it thus proved that I wasn’t really interested in getting elected and was part of some murky plot. My attempt to reassure them that such plot did not exist only served to prove my involvement (something to do with the Masonic Lodge, apparently) and they went berserk.

    I thought the future for such people was a course of medication, confinement in a place where they couldn’t hurt themselves or other people, and hopefully a measured return to society at some point in the future.

    It appears I was completely misguided and, in fact, the future that awaits them is to write a book that is then lauded by the left as an unimpeachable bible of fact. Well I never.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh..bevan..?..is that the best you can do..?

    a version of..”i know i am..but what are you..?’

    and the old ‘stolen documents’ mantra..?

    i thinkyou’ll have to do better than that ..darling..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Stephen, I think PaulL said it best

    “I can understand your desire for National to show their cards nice and early, but suggesting that they should do so is pure partisan politicing. You’re dressing it up as real concern, it isn’t.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/02/trite_matters.html#comment-414283

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    rex..had ‘pompous-pill’ today..?..have we..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I’d like to think that if Labour had such a thing as a political “neutron bomb”, they would have used it by now. Far be it from me to stoop to some sort of conspiracy theory, but these often heard quotes to “the policy that dare not speak it’s name” seem ever more and more desperate and given the current prevailing attitude to labour, may not be believed by enough people to cause a difference.

    It was tried with the EB 3 years ago, near the end of a close election campaign and ended in a close win to Labour. What sort of scandal would be needed to turn a 23% poll lead into an election night defeat? If such a scandal existed, surely the MSM would have picked up on something by now don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    you tell us some mindless anecdote..that is meant to disprove the malfeasances/facts..as detailed in ‘hollow-men’..as happened in 2005..?

    you must really think we are all as thick as pigshit..eh..?

    phil9whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    oh..bevan..?..is that the best you can do..?

    a version of..”i know i am..but what are you..?’

    No phil, its a how hypocritic of you to have that objection regarding National, yet remain so silent in regard to Owen Glenn buying Honours from Labour.

    and the old ’stolen documents’ mantra..?

    i thinkyou’ll have to do better than that ..darling..

    Well they are either stolen or forged darling. Cant be anything else so ask yourself, why have we not seen the software versions of the emails released?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    And John Key plans to cut everyone’s wages!

    Oh, and I’m still waiting for that explanation from John on a) what he actually said in Kerikeri, and b) exactly what concrete steps he will take to lift wages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Yeah Bevan I just want policy now cos like anyone who posts on a political blog during the day, I am a political junkie and I want info NOW!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    And John Key plans to cut everyone’s wages!

    Oh, and I’m still waiting for that explanation from John on a) what he actually said in Kerikeri, and b) exactly what concrete steps he will take to lift wages.

    Ive got to laugh, really that line has been working so well for you and the Labour party up until now hasnt it! You Labourites must be desperate to see your poll result breach the 20’s!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    I guess National’s strategy is to adopt Labour’s policy and release their own as soon as possible to the election, so it’s too late for Labour to steal their’s (just being prudent), or too late for the public to evaluate it all (we do have things to hide, but voters may not pick it up before the election).

    That said, coalitions always give both main parties an opportunity to do things not in their own manifesto (whether they like this or not).

    I am just waiting for the billboard campaign – National policy, Key photo-copied it. Vote National, vote Labour lite. However it would signal the end of the phony conspiracy theory war.

    Of course, if National reply by releasing their own independent policy … the real conspiracy theory war will start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Manolo (13,783 comments) says:

    whoar said: “you must really think we are all as thick as pigshit..eh..?”

    Absolutely. I’m convinced of it phil, but I would blame it on the stuff you smoke. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    you tell us some mindless anecdote..that is meant to disprove the malfeasances/facts..as detailed in ‘hollow-men’..as happened in 2005..?

    What facts? Has he released his source material? No. has he detailed his sources? No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    heh Remember who was in the Labour government of 1984 You know the one that introduced a number of policies that never saw the light of day in its election manifesto.

    Remember election manifestos For the young ones these we documents that stated what a political party policy and legislative programme would be issue by issue.

    And until 1984 there was a quaint tradition that an elected party did actually implement the policies straight out of its manifesto.

    Yes younger viewers I know that must seem very odd to you But thats how it was until 24 years ago

    You knew what you were voting for What you saw was what you got.

    Since them its been a lolly scramble Gods knows what they will do as opposed to what they say they will do.

    And all blamed on the other side whatever the reality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Rex & others

    I have reliable info that Labour has a secret agenda also, conscription for all those 18-80 to fight the new war against the US, a nuclear power station to be built in Remuera and a reduction of all tax rates to a flat 10%. Tui anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    I thought the plan was only Phil and Tane lose their State houses and they are the only ones to get a pay cut. Everyone else gets tax cuts and better governance of our money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Adam (562 comments) says:

    On a previous thread Lee C indicated that he was laughing with you Tane. Just so we are clear I’m laughing at you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    So… let’s just get this straight. You all honestly believe that the entire National caucus, its leader and its backers have suddenly decided they actually like Working For Families, Kiwisaver, the Cullen Fund, four weeks’ annual leave, paid parental leave, the Kyoto Protocol, income related rents and interest free student loans after all?

    Or do you think it’s more likely they’ve realised it’s politically expedient to get these issues off the agenda before the election?

    [DPF: Like no. Accept they are now a political reality and will leave alone yes. Just as I am sure Labour did not like the 1991 benefit cuts but have left them alone. And Labour didn't like the 96/98 tax cuts but also left them largely alone]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Adam (562 comments) says:

    Still laughing :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    Well you can sit there laughing to yourself Adam, or you can come up with an alternative analysis. It’s your choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Tane:

    Well, I know this isn’t going to satisfy your inner wingnut but I actually thing your real problem is that John Key is a conservative leader of a conservative party. Not quite radical enough for you? Well, tough titty. I guess your soul brothers on the rabid right are equally disappointed we’ve not seen the Liarbore Dykeocracy make union membership, Te Reo lessons and homosexuality compulsory with all dissenters deported to the Rangitoto Gulag, but they’re just biding their time.

    And, dear chap, forgive me for not coming up with an ‘alternative analysis’. I’ve learned the hard way that engaging with paranoid conspiracy theorists and hyper-partisan wingnuts serves no other purpose than to increase aspirin sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    gd

    I would disagree. Labour has in 1999, 2002 and 2005 been quite diligent about implementing their manifesto – with of course the additional influence of coalition partners – Alliance 1999-2002, United 2002-8 and NZ First 2005-2008.

    As for 1984 – the 1984 manifesto was bland – Roger Douglas wrote a book in 1983 (Rowling sacked him) and then Lange rehired him knowing what was in it. As someone who wrote to Roger Douglas in 1983 and who received a reply of some depth and breadth all I can say is this. I expected everything he did – but three things. He originally supported an assets tax, he had not considered a flat tax, he would place his programme before service to the party and it’s supporters.

    PS My reply from Anne Hercus (she rejected reducing Super to a retirement benefit, because old workers were working beyond retirement age to pay off the mortgage – so … was a better option), also in 1983.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Tane, You risk getting the “I’m thick” label if you can’t recognise pragmatism and logic when it is put in front of you. The Nats accepting that it would be extremely difficult and hugely disruptive to unwind a policy doesn’t necessarily say that they like it. But then you only seem to be able to see things in red or white.

    There are many measures that were put in place by a National Government of the past but which weren’t reversed when Labour got their grubby hands on the reins. Doesn’t mean that they like or wholeheartedly support them though.

    It is a pretty long bow to draw though to suggest that there is a secret agenda to implement policies that haven’t been discussed or made public. The only party to do that in recent years has been Labour with Privy Council abandonment etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    No Tane, I do not believe that. What I do believe is that they will look at everything objectively, analyze it and see where it can be improved. And if it can be improved.

    Unlike you, I am not willing to discard a parties alternatives for a healthy, happy and prosperous New Zealand out of blind ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    How appropriate – a post titled ‘Conspiracy Theories” and comments from Mr Tinfoil Hat Tane Tutae…ah, the irony

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    No Tane, its just National has realised its pragmatic to adopt those policies, because some of them do some good, and others are to hard to change, or national needs more details once its actually in government to make well informed decisions.

    National is being the bigger party and admitting that some Labour policies are ok, and they accept that they’re embedded, popular, & hard to reverse.

    Now if only Labour realised that public opinion matters, and a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from, then perhaps it wouldn’t be approximately 20% points behind. But I guess that would also require getting of their high horse too, something that will never happen as long as helens in charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    Tane keeps pushing the line that National has had a road-to-Damascus policy experience – it has suddenly adopted Labour’s public policy agenda – which he doubts instead favouring the radical hidden agenda conspiracy.

    This is preposterous.

    It assumes National is about policy. That isn’t its history.

    National appears now as it truly is and has always been for most of its history.

    Of course it largely adopts Labour’s programme – where that has broad support. That is what ‘conservative’ parties do. The radicalism of both Brash and Richardson was a through back to National pre 1941. They were aberrations.

    National’s history is one of adopting and expanding the status quo in public policy programmes. Traditionally Labour is the radical option (except under the leadership of Helen Clark where we have a ‘conservative’ Labour Party – which only tinkered and largely accepted the status quo from 1984 – 1993. The only real exception is the labour relations framework and even there the reversion met a wholesale cultural and economic change and thus made little real difference.

    National’s election strategy is clear. First; it’s their turn. Second; largely adopt the status quo. Third; where National’s previous policy positions differ from the status quo (and that’s unpopular) jettison those policies. Forth; mimic Labour in making a very small number of cheap policy commitments. Fifth; it’s ok to be labelled dull and unimaginative in the face of a tired Labour Government.

    One might see greater boldness from National signaled prior to the election if the economy is significantly slowing by the time of the election. In that situation any fear created that there might be reconsideration of some entitlements will be matched by the public blaming Labour for the economic slow down. The the public largely find Key likeable and I suspect will accept that is qualified in terms of background and experience to kick start a slowing economy should he become PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    You know the way out of the dilemma this thread is going on about?

    It’s easy and painless and means politicians can be less accountable and makes folk take responsibility for themselves and their communities.

    Take the power away from the politicians and give it to the people. Power to the people. Referendums. On almost everything. Including tax rates, crime sentencing, driving age, drinking age, smacking.

    Go on, bring yourselves to live by the votes of your fellow man. The alternative, as it is currently that is, is living by the winds of politicians. I myself would rather live by the referendum of a shopping mall than the nobodies in parliament.

    Bring yourselves to do it. Respect the opinion of your neighbour. I know the left lot can’t (power to the people? ha ha haa ha ha ha ha infinity). What about the rest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    vto

    There is an element of authoritarianism in allowing one’s neighbour to determine what one can and cannot lawfully do. This is not a right or left issue, but liberal vs authoritarian.

    It is interesting that on many recent social legislative change issues (the conscience vote), the National caucus has voted in majority against the new law. So if the same issues were brought back before parliament, the right to purchase alcohol would revert to age 20, civil union partners would be divorced by the state, and assets purchased with the proceeds of prostitution seized from their owners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Philu:

    you tell us some mindless anecdote..that is meant to disprove the malfeasances/facts..as detailed in ‘hollow-men’..as happened in 2005..?

    No, I point out that there are some mentally unbalanced individuals for whom denial of the preposterous merely serves to confirm their belief in the existence of the preposterous.

    As Bevan points out, I’m still waiting for Hager to release any evidence or source material to substantiate his conspiracy theories. Crap theorising relying heavily on implication and innuendo does not equate to fact any more than do “mindless anecdotes”.

    A little too much postmodernist text deconstruction there, phil. It helps if you just read what I say, not what you think I say.

    you must really think we are all as thick as pigshit..eh..?

    There’s an aphorism about the fit of a cap that comes to mind here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Quoth the NBR:

    “The bigger damage is to those who argue that “Hollow Men” run the National Party. That narrative hinges on the idea that any business or rich person’s interference in politics must be malevolent or nefarious. ”

    Except in Owen Glenn’s case, because when it’s a Labour conspiracy then THAT REALLY IS MALEVOLENT OR NEFARIOUS, obviously…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    You Labourites really crack me up when you carry on about stolen policies. How about these policies (national ones) stolen by Labour:

    Removing the $1,890 cap on charitable donations. Donations of any amount, up to an individual’s total net income, will be eligible for the 33.3% rebate. Removing the 5% cap on the level of donations that can be deducted by companies and Maori Authorities.
    National announced on 27 February 2007 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=360672
    Government announced in 2007 Budget http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=373322

    Full-cost funding for community groups that better covers the true costs of service delivery. Less bureaucracy and fewer compliance costs.
    National announced on 16 May 2007 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=373003
    Government announced in 2008 Prime Minister’s Statement http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=407955

    All payments which reimburse volunteers for actual and reasonable expenses will be tax free, regardless of the amount of the payment. Honoraria payments will be tax free up to an amount of $500 per year per person.
    National announced on 16 May 2007 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=373003
    Government released a discussion document on 1 November 2007 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=373003

    A greater emphasis on trades training in schools. Giving schools more flexibility to offer their students trades and industry training opportunities outside their school-gates. Expanding school-based apprenticeship training.
    National announced on 18 June 2007 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=378370
    Government announced on 30 January 2008 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=406703

    Giving the police the ability to issue time-bound, on-the-spot protection orders to protect families.
    National announced on 1 November 2007 http://parliament.newsroom.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=397730
    Government issued discussion document in mid-December 2007 http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/domestic-violence-act-review/discussion.pdf

    That’s one quarter of the list I have.

    So please Labourites, enough already of the “National doesn’t have any policies” nonsense, or even that they are stealing Labours policies. Labour is stealing Nationals policies constantly because they can’t think of any themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    People, people, people!

    Why are you still engaging with Tane? It is completely pointless.

    You can’t talk a deluded person out of their delusions.

    You cant REASON them out of a position they arrived at unreasonably. In other words, they did not reach their position rationally so you have no chance in moving them from that position with rational argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    You labour guys really crack me up when you go on about National not having any policies. Consider the policies Labour has stolen from National such as:

    Removing the $1,890 cap on charitable donations. Donations of any amount, up to an individual’s total net income, will be eligible for the 33.3% rebate. Removing the 5% cap on the level of donations that can be deducted by companies and Maori Authorities.
    National announced on 27 February 2007
    Government announced in 2007 Budget

    Full-cost funding for community groups that better covers the true costs of service delivery. Less bureaucracy and fewer compliance costs.
    National announced on 16 May 2007
    Government announced in 2008 Prime Minister’s Statement

    All payments which reimburse volunteers for actual and reasonable expenses will be tax free, regardless of the amount of the payment. Honoraria payments will be tax free up to an amount of $500 per year per person.
    National announced on 16 May 2007
    Government released a discussion document on 1 November 2007

    A greater emphasis on trades training in schools. Giving schools more flexibility to offer their students trades and industry training opportunities outside their school-gates. Expanding school-based apprenticeship training.
    National announced on 18 June 2007
    Government announced on 30 January 2008

    Giving the police the ability to issue time-bound, on-the-spot protection orders to protect families.
    National announced on 1 November 2007
    Government issued discussion document in mid-December 2007

    Committing all fuel tax revenues to the National Land Transport Fund.
    National had in 2005 election policy
    Labour announced on 25 July 2007

    Serious consideration of Public Private Partnerships for roading projects.
    National policy for many years – most recently confirmed on 17 Sep 2007
    Government announced on 7 February 2008

    Allowing lines companies to invest in generation, especially from renewable energy sources.
    National had in 2005 election policy
    Government introduced with Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill, first reading 11 Dec 2007.

    Devolving carbon credits to post-1990 forest owners
    National announced on 6 March 2007
    Government announced on 20 September 2007

    An emissions trading scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    National proposed on 6 October 2006
    Labour announced on 20 September 2007

    A multi-year programme of personal tax cuts
    National policy for many years
    Government announced on 7 February 2008

    Reducing the rate of business tax from 33% to 30%
    National had in 2005 election policy
    Labour announced in 2007 Budget

    Promoting housing affordability by freeing up the supply of land and cutting building compliance costs
    National announced on 5 Aug 2007
    Government announced in 2008 Prime Minister’s Statement

    So please Labourites, lay off already on the National has no policies business. It makes me think you are even more blinded by your bias than you are. If anything, Labour’s the one who is pinching policies because they can’t think of their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    If anyone who reads this blog works for WINZ – Phil Ure is on a domestic purposes benefit, his son appears to be 10 or 11, hardly in need of a father who sits home all day and writes shit like he has on this thread. Aren’t parents supposed to be encouraged to work? The guy reckons he has a Uni Masters and obviously needs something to do during the day.

    Please, please, please do something. It almost makes me cry to think that MY tax dollars are paying for this complete waste of space to sit around and talk crap all day.

    Thank you.

    Mr and Mrs Little.

    xxx

    [DPF: Leave kids and people's skills or otherwise as a parent out of comments or demerits follow]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    now look what you’ve done..!

    chicky is ‘crying’..and so is mrs chicky..!

    aww!!!…

    him and mrs chicky are siting/(roosting?) there..

    tears rolling down their beaks..

    as they (discontentedly) ”cheep’..

    oh..!..the humanity..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. The Double Standard (69 comments) says:

    Nice work bogus news.

    Have you seen the latest *shock horror* conspiracy on Teh Standard. Someone from a parliamentary IP address edit Peachey’s wiki page almost a yeah ago. OMFG!

    And the same IP range also edited (in a postive way) wiki entries for Nandor Tanczos, Chris Carter, John Tamihere, Darien Fenton, Anita McNaught, Darren Hughes, Tim Selwyn, Charles Chauvel, and Keith Locke.

    According to the twisted mindset of Teh Parties acolytes, it must have been Peachy that made the changes. Yeah Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    Really Chicken Little? Philu, come on now you’re a grown man (if what chicken says is right). Surely if you have time to spend all day doing this pu, then you have time to spend turning your mind to generating your own income. Yes..? Eh….? Is it time for you to grow up and look after yourself? Rather than have other people work to pay your bills?

    Or is that beneficiary bashing?

    Wonder if a grown-up answer will be forthcoming…eh…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Chicken Little, vto, leave phules private life private.

    If HE didnt bring it up, WE dont comment on it.

    We have given him enough shyte for being a bludger for years, and I doubt many people want to hear him drone on explaining his choice of lifestyle AGAIN.

    Happily phule provides many more interesting points to attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    The Katherine Rich example above – is that really a “Conspiracy Theory” or is it just a theory?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    Suitably chastised DPF, but by fuck it makes me angry.

    vto – I don’t think its bene bashing to ask why (when as far as I’m aware it is WINZ policy for parents on the DPB to be looking for parttime work after their youngest child has turned 5 years of age) phule is just sitting on his arse posting shite.

    Anyway enough of that – Mrs Little has that look in her eye :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Bogusnews I have nicked your comment and links and stuck it on http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/ because it was good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ghostwhowalksnz (123 comments) says:

    A multi-year programme of personal tax cuts
    National policy for many years
    Government announced on 7 February 2008

    Love that one.
    National lost with that policy in 1999, labour had a policy to increase one tax rate
    national lost with that policy in 2002
    National lost with that policy in 2005

    And this one
    Committing all fuel tax revenues to the National Land Transport Fund.

    That was a real stinkers as the didnt committ to ALL road and fuel taxes. So in reality no change

    And of course Student loans interest free was going to be opposed by every bone in Shar-keys body ( not that Sharks have any)

    keep up the good work Bogus news, the taxpayers who pay your wage need more of this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Ghostwhowalksnz (123 comments) says:

    Brierleys cetainly got Ruth Richardson turfed out of the Finance job in 1993.
    Apparently she was too ‘pure’ and immediately after the tax laws got altered to allow their complex corporate structure to reap big tax benefits.

    Nationals big name donors have never been revealed so how can we possibly tell if they bought policy.
    But to find out how much the Talley Bros had given in the last 15 years would slice a big chunk of Nationals poll lead
    0.5million for each of % of nats poll lead would be entirely possible

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. 1984 (89 comments) says:

    Anythings possible..girls can do anything..Labour will be in front tomorrow..so that’s $0.033m p.a. is “entirely possible”..I suggest you stop walking sit down and have a cup of tea

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    LeeC,

    No probs. Hope it helps.

    Hated to put that in as I knew it would burst a few left leaning bubbles :-) Nothing like the truth to spoil a bit of leftie BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    Ghostwhowalks

    Why do you think that simply because a person know a bit about what’s going on that we are automatically on the National party pay roll? Is it because you Lefties are so thick that that is the standard you are used to?

    For the record, I do not work for the National party, have never recieved a nickle from them and are full time employed in a private company.

    What troubles me (constantly) is the ill informed comment from lefties that leads onto further ill informed comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    GWW uses the standard substandard approach: Pick a successful businessman (never a successful business woman, note) who hasn’t donated to the thieves on the treasury benches, and make up a fictional smear about them. might just have to bring the substandard to the talley’s attention. i hope you guys have a good lawyer who works pro-bono – or will you just ask H2 to open the tax purse..I mean petty cash?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Many thanks Bogus. By the by – Anyone else see this as ironic?

    “Democracy of course involves elections but it also involves freedom of media and freedom of speech and you’re not going to be able to have a proper democratic process and elections in a years time unless those basic freedoms are upheld.”

    Helen Clark Prime Minister of New Zealand on the Fiji situation today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Zippy Gonzales (485 comments) says:

    My uncle’s dog told me that John Key eats babies and urinates on unemployed people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    The same way that it would be ironic from the leader of another democracy? Each has their own campaign finance laws (and they vary from country to country) – and in every country there is lack of unanimity on what these laws should be. And I don’t see any limitation of free speech about this issue here either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Bok (740 comments) says:

    I loved the sound bite on TV One news last night with Ms Clark. When she suggested that Fiji is suppressing free speech and that that would make for an unjust election next year. It took me about 10 minutes to stop laughing at the irony of the statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Genuine question … Ghost said that Labour had a policy to increase just one tax rate in 1999. Is that correct? My recollection was that they said there would be no increase in personal tax rates and this was their first broken promise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    are you ‘easily excited’..?..ross millar..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    Conspiracy theory #16,231 – Helen Clark on the NZ Herald

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/fomenting-happy-mischief.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    Bogusnews – have also linked to your comments on Keeping Stock – cheers mate!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    To be fair BogusNews, the tax and charity-related stuff were UF initiatives…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    Philu, Kimble, DPF above I posted re philu’s personal situation. Apologies for overstepping the mark. No more. I am well aware there always two sides to a story (which is private anyway). Also that a judgment based solely on the prosecution is a worthless judgment. Philu’s postings, while sometimes nutty, usually bring a smile. Keep it up.

    And now back to my clever, witty, insightful and always correct postings :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Ross Miller: Genuine question … Ghost said that Labour had a policy to increase just one tax rate in 1999. Is that correct? My recollection was that they said there would be no increase in personal tax rates and this was their first broken promise.

    I believe they said that taxes for 95% of the tax payers would not increase. My memory is a bit dodgy, but I recall reading a summary of the taxes they did introduce and there was something like 15 new or increased taxes that would have affected everyone in that term. But, because they were considered indirect/consumption based taxes they were not counted against one of Labour’s broken pledges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    philu … to respond. Ross Millar may get easily excited but I guess that’s for him to answer. Ross Miller doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote