Never one to take a stand when a compromise is on the table, Neville Key is now chasing compromises that haven't even been offered. From this morning's Herald we learn that he now wants a compromise on the dumped complementary medicines bill:National Party leader John Key says he will sign up to the two-tiered compromise proposal on a transtasman therapeutics agency, a breakthrough that could see legislation taken off ice and passed by Christmas...Is there anything on which this prick will take a stand? Any position at all that he won't sell out?
Is there anything in there at all?
UPDATE 1: Instant outcry here and DPF's, and then instant spin at John Boy's. "Today's NZ Herald story misrepresents our position," says John Boy. Oh yes? So what exactly is your position, John?
"The story correctly quotes me as saying 'If they came to us now with that proposal, we will sign it.' I was, of course, referring to the Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Goods regime - not the proposal put up by NZ First. I repeatedly made that clear to the NZ Herald yesterday."Uh huh, so what exactly is your position, John?
Our position is simple: If complementary medicines are removed from the regime, National will support it.Clear now? So what do those statements appearing in the Herald actually mean, those referring "to the two-tiered compromise proposal on a transtasman therapeutics agency" to which John Boy said:
- "If they came to us now with that proposal, we will sign it."
- "...bring us the proposal and we'll bring our pen. We're on."
- "If they came to us now with that proposal, we will sign it. We sat there waiting for it to turn up. No one has ever seen it."
UPDATE 2: Or perhaps his middle name is just Flat-Out-Liar. Herald journalist Audrey Young has come out swinging at her Herald blog, exposing Key's deceptive wriggle (and in the process shows the value of journalists' blogs in exposing politicians' cant) and calling him all but the 'L' word:
John Key has just issued a press statement saying my story in today's Herald on the transtasman therapeutics regulatory agency misrepresents him.Read on for part 1 of the interview transcript, which includes this gem:
I'm bloody angry because his press statement totally misrepresents what took place yesterday.
He clearly suggested that if Labour presented him with a proposal like the one Peters put up - one that carves out complementary medicines except for those who export to Australia and have a voluntary opt-in - he would sign it.
I can only suspect that Tony Ryall - his chief negotiator on the bill - has gone ballistic and Key has had to back away from the clear and repetitive suggestion he made yesterday in the company of three senior Herald journalists that if he was presented with a proposal like the one Peters put up that he would sign it... But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself. Naturally I had my tape running in the interview - there were four tapes on it.
Key: It's pretty straightforward isn't it? It's all very well people having a whack at us, but if they want to bring us a proposal in line with what Peters said on television, we'll sign it. I keep asking for it. No one has shown it to me."Compare that now to what Key said this afternoon:
"The story correctly quotes me as saying 'If they came to us now with that proposal, we will sign it.' I was, of course, referring to the Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Goods regime - not the proposal put up by NZ First. I repeatedly made that clear to the NZ Herald yesterday."How's your hero looking now, National apologists? He can't even lie straight.
12 comments:
Lindsay Perigo was quite impressed with him during a Radio Pacific interview last week. Even said he might reconsider calling him Neville.
I think I might have already said this before.. but please indulge me.
This man is a disgusting opportunist and his party seems to lack both real talent and coherent policies.
Labour has come to the end of its ability to govern and the voting public has had enough of them, so Key will most likely win the next election - not because he has anything to offer, but because he will slip into it by default, helped by the fact that people are getting fed up with the mess of MMP and the fringes of madness that it brings.
So here we have a man who will do nothing at all to risk alienating anybody. All he wants to do is to gain power for power's sake. No vision. No firm views even. Just a greed for power.
New Zealand can expect exactly nothing from this man or his party. Has he at any time indicated that he has any ideas for this poor stagnant country? Has he offered ANYTHING at all?
Barring a miracle, Key will be our next Prime Minister, and then God (metaphorically speaking) help us all.
He did manage to interject some rational thinking into the Auckland Airport saga during the Radio Pacific interview (while mad dog Perigo frothed at the mouth 'sell! sell!'), exposing once again what a tunnel visioned intellectual lightweight he is. But apart from that I'm less than impressed with Key's lack of ability to take a stand on issues. I think the problem is that he has correctly identified that the public don't really want solutions.
but will he oppose Winston's trip to North Korea?
Craig, could you expand on the idea that the public doesn't want solutions? I wonder if it is partly that the only 'solutions' the public sees are not solutions at all, just made-up tired old PC crap, and they have lost faith that anything can be done to because there is no clear sense of direction?
I see NZ at the moment as stumbling confusedly from one panic to another with no real vision or plan for the medium or short term. We don't have a 'place' or a clear aiming point and none of our politicians or political parties are offering any worthwhile hope either.
I know it sounds negative to continually whine about things like (mis)edication (no)law and order, (un)health etc... the list is seemingly endless... but where, honestly, is a politician offering a clearly articulated plan (if you don't like the 'vision' thing) for our country?
I for one think that, if a political party were to come through with a coherent action plan to address how we can halt the slide off the OECD list and make our country work again as a society, then that party would kick the shite out of National and give the electorate hope.
If we continue down the present path, we will be another Zimbabwe in a few years' time. One more generation of uneducated children is all it will take to turn us into a basket case, with no assets other than a beautiful coastline and no identity other than being the biggest gang headquarters of the Pacific.
Dave & Craig - the problem, as I see it, can be identified as such:
Many people, for any number of reasons including those you present, are fed up with "the govt".
But their very next words are invariably "the govt should ...".
Until enough people realise that the state cannot possibly fix the problems - particularly since it created most of them - & thus look *outside* the state to do so, the problems will escalate and we'll continue to see changes of govt for the sake of changing the govt.
Dave, you said: "I know it sounds negative to continually whine about things like (mis)edication (no)law and order, (un)health etc... the list is seemingly endless... but where, honestly, is a politician offering a clearly articulated plan (if you don't like the 'vision' thing) for our country? ... a coherent action plan to address how we can halt the slide off the OECD list and make our country work again as a society"?
Sounds like you should keep your ear to the ground for the announcement of Libertarianz' transitional policies. From yesterday's press release:
"While the ACT Party arses about on dance floors making boasts that they can work "with anybody," the real freedom party is about to begin offering up detailed policies to encourage government shrinkage...
"Libertarianz has always promoted the abolition of Nanny State, and existing policies pointed the way. Now they're taking it one step further. 'At the Libertarianz party's weekend conference in Wellington we began the process of formulating policies to roll back government in a step by step fashion across all portfolio areas - from environment to education, from tax to drug legalisation," leader Bernard Darnton said...
"The Libertarianz slogan has always been More Freedom, Less Government," says Darnton, "and Libertarianz principles and policies have always demonstrated the 'goal posts' of such a slogan -- the aim of getting government out of people's pockets, out of their faces, and off their backs. Now and over the next few months we will roll out more detailed policies in all portfolio areas that show how to encourage more freedom, ensure less government, and handle the transition from more government to less government."
"...These transitional policies will creatively demonstrate how to promote more freedom with no new coercion -- the overall principle on which our transitional ideas are based," Darnton says. "We're very confident that other parties will want to steal these policies. In fact, you could say we're encouraging outright theft," he says with a smile."
To be fair to Key, he was asked on Perigo's show if he would fight and repeal the Democracy rationing legislation and he gave an unequivocal "Yes"
So. The honeymoon is definitely over. Good.
PC, yes, I see the point (I think).. but from the example you gave from the press release the Libz are focussing on Abolishing Nanny State' and "rolling back government" etc.
I don't think this will cut it with the electorate, frankly. Most normal people would get a message from this stance of potential anarchy. I know thats not what you mean or want, but the way you phrase it is mot positive and it smacks of pie-in-the-sky unreality with voters - which is why you have never got anywhere electorally speaking.
Your message needs to articulated in less extreme language if you are going to get people to listen to you. While I agree (wholeheartedly) that the government is too much in our faces, voters still want to hear what a political party will DO.. not what it will NOT DO. This doesn't mean coming up with more crap and burocracy obviously; but it means reframing your message in more positive and specific terms and fleshing it out with believable examples.
Craig
I'm keen to sell all our a/port shares to the Dubai Aero folk. It's a strong deal for us. Now why on Earth would you be against that? They're mine to sell to whoever I want to. What I'd like to do is sell the parcel to these guys.
I own, I want to quit them and I like the purchasers. What is your issue with that?
---
John Key knows that for government (local as well as WLG) to hold shares in companies is not a very good idea. There is moral hazard. John Key once alluded to the risks of government playing the markets when the Bollard Reserve Bank started trying to play the currency a little while back. Same goes for equities.
My advice to all of you is this. If it is your money you are risking it is fair and proper for you to play. Go ahead. Get right in there. Place your investment bet. You may make good profits or if your grand theory is wrong and your ideology false, you may get done like a dog.
If it is other people's money you intend to play, money you as a functionary of government managed to acquire through the coercive apparatus of said government, you have no right to gamble it on the markets. No right to any of it at all. You should not be in equities or derivatives or anything. It is not up to you to risk the wealth of others to support your ideologies and grand theories. Use your own money.
The trouble with your type is that any losses cost you nothing. Other people lose because of you. You are not worried about the loses because you'll just go steal some more from the people. Shame on you, you thief!
---
Does Key stand for anything? Can't tell. But he is a poLitician. They as a group are known for deception and dishonesty. Has he been caught doing a naughty?
Banker
If he was a Cabinet Minister, would he be fired? :-)
Post a Comment