Quote of the Week
May 28th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarPhil Goff was interviewed this week by his former colleague John Tamihere, and he was asked about how come he condemns policies he once advocated for and voted for. The response is priceless:
TAMIHERE: How do you say on one side of it, oh no, this is damn good and all that sort of stuff and then on the other side of it say, wow shucks, today I thought about it and what you’re doing John is wrong but when I did it, it was right?
PHIL GOFF: Well, it was right when we did it …
Priceless.
My position is that Labour reducing the top tax rate to 33% and company rate to 28% in the 1980s was a good thing (and I voted for them in 1987) and that National doing the same thing in 2010 is also a good thing.
I can respect that Michael Cullen thought reducing the tax rates in 1988 was a bad thing, and that National reducing them in 2010 is also a good bad thing. I disagree, but at least he is consistent.
But Phil tries to have it both ways, by arguing that it was only the right thing to do when Labour did it.
I wonder if there is anyone on the right who tries to argue the opposite to Phil – that National reducing the top tax rate to 33 was good but Labour reducing it to 33% was bad? I’ve yet to meet them.
Tags: Phil Goff
May 28th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Goff is a harmless chap to be sure. However is comment “Well, it was right when we did it …” in and of itself is not untrue. There are times when a policy makes good sense, and other times when that same policy would be nuts to even contemplate. Not excusing him here .. just saying.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:20 am
The devil in me wonders what National were saying when Labour made the tax cuts? remember those dreadful days when there was just National or Labour and twenty percent of the people voted for a party which then got just 2 seats out of was it 80 … a bad form of democracy is FPP.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Mr Irrelevant is a fool and this is just proving the case. he has so little to hang onto and cannot make any traction in the polls. The media is largely ignoring him (quite correctly) and therefore when he gets the opportunity to get on TV or on the radio he spouts off with verbal diarrhea and his faux anger is just hilarious.
He is so desperate and it is showing. On his current performance I think he will beat Billy’s shameful 20.9% record in 2011.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I would agree with you David — reducing the tax rates is a good thing, doesn’t matter which party does it.
On a related note, I thought the budget was pretty good. Good to see a government keen on reducing taxes and trying to grow the pie, rather than think of more ways of redistributing the same sized pie.
My only quibble would be GST. A shame they increased GST. I would prefer less government spending and lower taxes all round, including GST.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:34 am
I’ve changed my opinion of Goff after reading this, we have all know forever that Labour have an “It’s OK when we do it” mentality but finally they have just come and said it. Goff admitting that the party hasn’t actually got any policies rather it just takes the opposite direction to National and the rest of the world clarifies what Labour actually stand for as a party – NOTHING.
It’s been a long time since a Labour MP/PM has actually been honest enough to say; We just take the opposite position to National, we don’t care why we took that position or what the consequences are – we just want to get elected and we will say anything to try and achieve that.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Perhaps he meant “it was the right thing to do at that time”
But yeah, what a disaster…
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:52 am
jcuknz – yes, I suspect their was a lot of confusion on the National benches when Labour did everything some of them never thought would happen. Back then though, many Nats were still Muldoonist and not that happy with the direction Labour was going in. It’s sad that Labour have been at the forefront of all the major policy changes, either good or bad.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Isn’t the poiint being missed – the “left” is always correct. Only they work for the “common man” (despite their policies failing to deliver the economic growth which truly helps the lower echelons of society).
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Labours policies keep the common man very common…
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 10:09 am
On Tuesday in Parliament, Goff commented before he asked his next Supplementary that “some of us learn from our mistakes.” After this latest quote, I am quite sure, Goff doesn’t even know what his position is and was.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Kiwiblog – fig-leafing National with the Phil foil since 2008
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Phil Goff – the gift to National that keeps on giving.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Indeed, when Labour did it, it was for every kiwi battler and all kiwi families. When National did it, it was for their foreign paymaster, corporate fat-cat cronies.
LDO
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I have to ask, did he explain why it was right when they did it, why it is not the right thing to do now, what Labour’s better alternative is now, and why it is better?
That’s all he needs to do for me, and likely others, to be fine with him saying that.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I am on the right but think it is a bit rich that National is making such a big deal out of an inconsistency in Goff’s view 22 years ago.
I quote John Key, Sept 2, 2007
I also quote Nick Smith from 25 Nov 2005
Ian Wishart wrote an open letter to Nick Smith which he has declined to respond to.
Paul Holmes tried to get Nick Smith and John Boscawen on together to debate the EST. Before they came on Paul stated on air that one of them declined to debate the issues. I contacted John and he had not declined a debate. I do not think he was even asked. So it would appear Smith is scared to debate his flip-flop in a one to one on a public forum. Paul Holmes is very pro AGW so Smith would have had an advantage.
I think it is the height of hypocrisy for National to make a big deal of a statement by Goff 22 ago when there are plenty of examples of National doing the same but over a much shorter time period and not just over the ETS. There are just as bad on the anti-smacking legislation.
I voted for Norman Kirk should that be held against me for my present political views?
Just slightly off topic I would love to see either Key or Smith debate AGW and/of the ETS with Lord Monckton. His latest debate is brilliant.
Vote:
May 28th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
PHIL GOFF: Well, it was right when we did it …
but so wrong that I said it…
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“I voted for Norman Kirk should that be held against me for my present political views?”
No, but if he was running again, against the same opposition, and you voted against him then we can rightly question your reasons for voting for him in the first place and voting against him now. There is a difference that you overlooked in your haste to derail this thread.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Chuck Bird – That’s a great debate. Well work watching.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
um.. and it’s well worth watching
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“if he was running again, against the same opposition, and you voted against him then we can rightly question your reasons for voting for him in the first place and voting against him now”
You could question my reasons but not rightly question my reasons. Many people change their basic political philosophy over a period of 35 years. I see nothing wrong with that. That is the point I was making. I see it a bit petty trying to score points by quoting what Goff said 22 years ago when you consider National’s flip-flops depending on party polling. I presume you know how party polling works.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I am not a Labour supporter, in fact I am an ACT member, but I will have to stick up for Goff to an extent. You could argue that when Labour lowered the tax rate to 33% they were lowering it from 66% so it was bringing it down from being extremely high to some where in the 30s. Now when national bring it down, it is not massively high, it is still in the thirties, 38. You could argue that Goff would still prefer 33 to 66, but would more than that prefer 38 to 33. In fact when he spoke about how good it was to bring the tax down all those years ago, he could have favored bringing it down only to 38 bit since his colleagues had gone for 33, and he still thought 33 was better than 66, he supported it.
When he supported bringing it down from 66 to 33, he was not supporting 33 as the optimal specific number, or arguing that lower is always better, but rather agreeing that 66 was massively excessive.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
so a policy
Vote:can’t be right at one time and
wrong in another?
May 28th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
bombing dresden – right
Vote:in nineteen forty five, but
wrong in forty six
May 28th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Krazykiwi 9:16 is correct regarding changing your mind on something if such change is sound. The thing is that when John Key/National do it, the Labour lot wet themselves with excitement and drag out the boring “flip flop” call.
Vote:It can’t be too long before Andrew Little makes his move. I have noticed his ‘assistants” have been fronting the media recently, including with Paul Henry this morning.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
It can’t be too long before Andrew Little makes his move…
Then National can resurrect their old Reds under the Bed propaganda…
Well, it was alright then when they said it…
But would be alright today… Remember the cossack ads…
Remember the policies .. Geez National has changed.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I think the National Socialist’s owe Liarbore a whole heap of gratitude. If they were a true opposition the Nats would be struggling. As long as Liarbore stays Liarbore the Nats can get away shit and it doesn’t matter how much it stinks.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
bombing dresden – right
in nineteen forty five, but
wrong in forty six
Worst context used in the history of the Internet.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
side show bob
It’s just that Goff has nothing to offer.. some say he is nothing.. just an empty shell.
Heard the expression..
Little or Nothing.. Labour needs a Little leadership not a nothing leadership.
National are starting to stink.. but like the Fonterra they’re still creaming it.
Vote:May 28th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
bevan, open your
Vote:mind my son, there’s a point here
ex-trap-o-la-ted
May 28th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Yes, Haiku Dave, context is important. To my knowledge, Goff hasn’t explained this with reference to why it was right in the 1980s, why it’s not right now, what his alternative is and why it is better. Is my knowledge of what Goff has explained lacking?
Vote:May 29th, 2010 at 12:21 am
you’re quite right kitty;
Vote:farkgoff needs to explain this
or look a right dill
May 29th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
hey haiku dave
I want you to know that in spite of everything, you’ve always been as funny as a chemical attack on a refugee camp.
Vote:May 31st, 2010 at 1:07 am
Fail Goff
Vote:I wonder if anyone made that joke of him. English names facinate me sometimes.