Great viewing

June 29th, 2009 at 5:48 am by David Farrar

As people will know Labour has attacked National’s decision to let state house tenants buy the homes they live in. Well some clever sod at National found a report from 19986 when the then Labour Minister of proudly announced exactly the same policy, and raved on about how wonderful it will be.

Who was the Minister of Housing then? Our own . So enjoy the video of having fun with Goff in the House.

It does reinforce the point I made last week about Goff being an enigma. I’d like to know what he really thinks about allowing state house tenants to buy their own homes. Does he really think what he announced in 1986 was a mistake?

Tags: , ,

41 Responses to “Great viewing”

  1. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Never happened, no doubt those Crosby Textor types causing trouble with CGi.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

    Actually it just shows what a lying, cheating, mendacious, callous set of Bastards Labour all are.

    Goof is a classic prat, and little rumble tumble bully boy Mallard, and “I run the Show” Cunliffe are as untrustworthy.

    The only difference is that the latter prats want the first prat mentioneds’ job.

    They make me want to dry retch. Creepy scumbags.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    Truly a classic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    How could Goff have been Minister of Housing in 1996?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inventory2 (10,406 comments) says:

    Now, now DPF – surely you read John Armstrong’s account of how Labour stuck it to National over jobs all last week, and that it was a tactical triumph for Labour? That’s a great bit of video, and Heatley plays the smart-alec to a tee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Simon (758 comments) says:

    We all know Goff is a joke but in 2009 there is no need for any State housing. When is National going to sell off all the state houses?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    And, we have this morning’s Herald editorial: Everyone wins from sale of state houses…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10581301

    Oh Phil, oh Moana… oh dear!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    Danyl – I think you will find that was a slip of the keyboard from DPF. 1986, not 1996. You know bloggers usually save a bit of time on the proof-reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Danyl thats a typo its 1986 – see bottom of DPF’s posting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    Danyl – I think you will find that was a slip of the keyboard from DPF.

    Thanks Brian. That makes a lot more sense. I am shocked to learn that Goff has changed his mind on something during the last 23 years. Surely he is not fit to lead this country.

    [DPF: When it is a policy he *personally* championed as Minister, that is more significant than usual. But that was not even the point. What I would like to know if what is Goff’s real view on the issue]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    You all seem so surprised……….. NOT………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. starboard (2,549 comments) says:

    ..cue Labour party lickspittles..” OMG how did that get out ??!! …”someone call Phil… someone call Phil” !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. bobux (349 comments) says:

    Danyl

    I have no problem with a politician changing his mind. But I like to think there is a reason for it, other than naked opportunism.

    Did Goff truely believe that helping state tenants buy their own houses in was a good thing in 1986, but the implementation of the policy showed up flaws he hadn’t foreseen? If so, changing his position would be praiseworthy.

    But we don’t know. And unless he tells us, I will assume opportunism rather than concern for state tenants is the reason for his changed position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cerium (23,680 comments) says:

    I agree that Goof is a bit of an enigma. he seems a decent enough sort of bloke, intelligent, but he has mainly come across as a floundering opposition leader. Beats me why would anyone think that helping people buy their own homes was a bad idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inventory2 (10,406 comments) says:

    Once again, Phil Goff’s Rogernomic colours are showing ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    “Real” houses… well its an interesting idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    I have no problem with a politician changing his mind. But I like to think there is a reason for it, other than naked opportunism.

    I guess if I were a spin doctor for the Labour Party I’d say that Labour’s main objection to the scheme is that few state house residents can afford to purchase their houses, that those same houses were significantly cheaper 23 years ago and that the policy might have worked then but in the wake of the real estate boom few if any state housing residents can qualify for mortgages. But I also think it’s pretty reasonable for a politician to simply change their mind on something over a 23 year period and kind of pathetic to try and make an issue out of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    And DM, of course wages stayed the same as 23 years ago?

    It all depends on the strike price, which all depends on how well the Government wants this policy to succeed.

    One thing is for sure their NBV (Net Book Value) won’t have changed unless Labour cooked the books in their terms of office?

    Oh hang on a minute………………….!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    And DM, of course wages stayed the same as 23 years ago?

    No – relative to house affordability they declined dramatically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Sam (502 comments) says:

    But there is of course another elephant in the room, the fact that National are yet to come up with any policy of substance that hasn’t been already proposed by Labour… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mavxp (491 comments) says:

    Lockwood Smith is the only standout in this video IMHO.

    It’s great to finally have a decent Speaker in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    It’s all really quite sad, Sam is right. Politicians wonder why they are treated with disdain by the general public. Is it any wonder things are such a screw up in this country, no one is welling to make a stand and have the balls to stand by their decisions, be it individuals or the party. Is it fair to expect the punters to vote for a party or person that change their views like they change their underpants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cerium (23,680 comments) says:

    I’d rather more politicians were prepared to change their minds once they get good information to justify it. Or if circumstances change. Key seems prepared to do this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. badmac (136 comments) says:

    Labor would have been better off, just pointing out that National have adopted their policy and moving on. Easy points won, not egg on face. Good opposition supporting good policy. Save the antics for real screw ups.

    Heres another productivity idea. When they have question time, whats with the huge waste of time having the voting process on everything. Surely National could just register its votes for the day, then the call for a vote would just be “National any change in your votes, No?, votes are 61+ for, next!” Would double the amount of time available and get rid of that pathetic waste of $$ (we pay these clowns $100K plus for something that resembles kindergarten without the intelligence), the voting positions are known, yes some minor parties may wish to support the government and if Labor supported it they wouldn’t call for a vote so democracy remains safe.

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

    I think your spellcheck missed something else: surely you meant Goff is an enema (not an enigma), primarily because he’s giving everyone the shits at the moment…

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

    There does seem to be a bit of “the boy who cried wolf” about Phil.

    Good to see National highlight this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. OTGO (559 comments) says:

    5 years or so ago a then current opposition MP once told me that if the Govt gave away all of the state houses to the tenants it would save NZ tens of millions because the upkeep of these houses was far in excess of the rent received. So why don’t we just give them away and let the tenants pay for their upkeep?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    I have seen Goff interviewed on the morning news show and it’s actually hard to tell him apart from Helen sometimes. They have some of the same mannerisms, eg, if you ask him a hard question he’ll do this little condescending chuckle while giving you his answer as though to say ‘oh, you must be stupid for asking that’. Maybe they were seperated at birth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. xxx (34 comments) says:

    If anyone thinks home ownership means an increase in maintenance they’re either decietful of deluded. Between the landlords who use homes as tools to make money the cheapest way possible, and tenants who do not have the kind of values to maintain a home, there are few left that give a damn. Take a look through any area that borders on being a slum. Observe the expensive cars parked outside grubby homes. Observe the satellite dishes and sky TV aerials. The money is there, it just isn’t ever going to go into maintenance.

    Maintenance is a personal value that cannot be bought and does not arrive magically with property ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. xxx (34 comments) says:

    and for the final test, what kind of person is it that takes the trouble to put their infant daughter on the roof to throw stones at, but doesn’t own a ladder

    but won’t climb up and dig the weeds out of the gutter.

    Did you think parenthood would automatically make those people love their child, just like you think letting them own a property will make them look after it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Sunshine (1 comment) says:

    It’s hilarious to see how you apologists for the Right Wing are blubbering over an ancient conversation. God you must be desperate to make a point!

    Why not do something useful and blog about how the untouchable Mr Key and his razor gang have set about systematically decimating virtually every public sector programme and agency in the country. Oh right…the cycleway and Rugby World Cup will save our economy. So who cares.

    Get a grip on reality and move on from 1986 already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    Yup – leader of the opposition is still a soft target. Go get em, boy! Sick em!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ISeeRed (236 comments) says:

    Razor gang to every public sector programme and agency? If only, Sunshine!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    xxx shows off his room temp IQ “Observe the satellite dishes and sky TV aerials. The money is there, it just isn’t ever going to go into maintenance.”

    I own a well maintained rental. It has a sky dish. The tenant does not have sky. The dish was put there by the owner before me. Sky have no interest in retrieving their dishes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Diddums Sunshine. Ancient conversation my ass. This was Goff “honestly truely believing” something only to suddenly forget his own ideology because it doesn’t fit into the Labour Party of this century, which coincidentally is a Labour party regressing into a Labour Party of early last century…. Goff had a great mentor in Sir Roger Douglas who it seems he misses quite badly.

    I’ll say it again, Goff won’t be PM in 3 years, he won’t even be leader in 3 years.
    I’ll bet your state house on it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    clintheine (666) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:

    Hahaha, your true nature comes out clint!

    (Look closely)

    On topic: I’m getting sick of shagging around like this. Sell all state houses at the market rate.

    While we’re at it, sell all government assets which are not directly connected to A) The Police, B) The Army, C) The Courts. Drop income tax altogether and replace it with a consumption tax. Drop all barriers to international trade.

    Then let the good times roll…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Danyl Mclauchlan is defending Goof ball, good grief. I know you don’t like him Danyl, is this some desperate attempt to convince yourself that labour have any credibility?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bobux (349 comments) says:

    I guess if I were a spin doctor for the Labour Party I’d say that Labour’s main objection to the scheme is that few state house residents can afford to purchase their houses, that those same houses were significantly cheaper 23 years ago and that the policy might have worked then but in the wake of the real estate boom few if any state housing residents can qualify for mortgages.

    Danyl
    You might say that, but so what? I’m not sure how the number of qualifying tenants affects the underlying principle? Is there some magic level of uptake when Goff will flip back to thinking it is a good idea? Following your reasoning, the only objection is that the administrative costs to Housing NZ won’t be justified by the level of sales. But this isn’t the argument that Labour is running.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bobux (349 comments) says:

    Sunshine

    C’mon, surely you can manage a better attack than that. No one here is blubbering over a Goff flip-flop – we are laughing at how directionless he seems.

    And how is Key ‘untouchable’? He was elected nine months ago, and the voters seem to like him. In a couple more years they will get a chance to fire him. Do you have a problem with that?

    You might also like to provide some references for systematically decimating virtually every public sector programme and agency in the country. Try reading the budget and supporting documents, freely available on the Treasury website.

    Feeble, just feeble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dion (95 comments) says:

    > Has he remembered yet wether he supported the Sprink Bok Tour early 80’s? Or wether he believes in God?

    This is relevant, how?

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