Archive for the ‘Labour lies’ category

Another Labour lie

August 27, 2007

Sorry for the lack of posts over the last few days. I have been busy with university work.

 Helen Clark here says it is not the Labour party which has launched personal attacks John Key in recent weeks but the media. Yeah Right. The attacks were made in speeches by Labour politicians like Pete Hodgeson. The media only reported on those attacks.

Lying OK in Labour

July 31, 2007

David Farrar has a good post here about how David Benson-Pope lied to Helen Clark about his role in the Setchell sacking, but after Helen Clark found out, she did not sack him until the media found out Benson-Pope was lying. The moral of the story according to Farrar is in Labour “you don’t get sacked for lying. You get sacked for being caught by the media in a lie”. This principle is not new in Labour. The same moral can apply to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money for pledge cards to help win an election.

David Benson Pope sacked

July 30, 2007

David Benson-Pope has been forced to resign from Cabinet. This follows the unravelling of his lies that he knew no details of the sacking of Ms Setchell, and he didn’t express any opinion to anyone about her employment, and was not involved in the phone call from his office to Hugh Logan about Ms. Setchell’s employment, with it being revealed that at least four phone calls were made, and he expressed an opinion that he would be less “free and frank” in the prescense of Ms. Setchell. I didn’t buy his lies from the very begining, and I personally suspect that he said much more about the topic than him being less likely to be free and frank, but I have no way of proving these things. My fear is that with Benson-Popes head claimed, the matter will end. The reality is that it is perfectly possible (and I suspect) that Ms. Setchell was sacked on Benson-Popes orders, because she would get to know too much about a large taxpayer funded vote Labour government information campaign to promote Labour’s clean and Green credentials next election. I feel that there should be a full investigation into the issue, and the reinstatement of Ms. Setchell into her job. And the reason why Helen Clark forced Benson-Pope to resign was not here disgust at what happened, in fact I wouldn’t be suprised if Clark was involved in the sacking of Ms. Setchell, rather it was because he had become a huge political inconveniance for Labour.

Labour lies about Anti-Free Speech Bill

July 28, 2007

In the first reading of the anti-free speech Bill, Mark Burton gave two reasons for continuing to allow anonymous donations. The first was that it was too dififcult to find words to ban them. This is a lie, as they have words to ban anonymous donations to third partiers in the Bill, and they can easily put new sections into the bill to cover parties, similar to sections 44 and 45 which cover thied party donations.. The second reason is that it would need cross party consensus to implement such a ban. This is a lie, as with the sole exception of the Labour party, and possibly Act, there is already a cross party consensus. Also, Labour needs a cross party consensus to ban anonymous donations, but doesn’t need one for a far bigger law change, involving silencing critics of the government by banning them from spending more than $60 000 in a whole year criticising the government. Also Helen Clark has already given the real reason- Labour needs anonymous donations to fund itself.

Danger: flying pigs

July 25, 2007

Labour does not believe in public service neutrality. And Helen Clark and David Benson Pope are liars. These should be self evident from the following facts.

Helen Clark claims that David Benson-Pope did not know of the infamous phone call from Steve Hurring, who is the senoir advisor to David Benson-Pope, to Hugh Logan, CEO of the enviromental ministry, asking for Setchell to be sacked. David Benson-Pope also denies knowledge. Colin Espinor does not find this credible, pointing out that Benson-Pope is “known as something of a control freak who keeps his staff on a tight leash”, and that Benson-Pope lied to the pubic in a similar incident when his office (with Benson-Pope lying that he didn’t know) leaked parts of a police report relating to his mistreatment of pupils by him as a teacher at Bayfield High School. Espinor’s opinon is shared by Colin James who says “a person in the ministers office speaks for the minister. The minister is responsible for what that person says or does as a member of the minister’s office whether or not it is at the minister’s specific bidding or with the minister’s knowledge”. I find it easier to believe Espinor and James than Clark and benson-Pope. But there is no proof so lets give them the benefit of the doubt.

Until this, which reveals he was breifed on the issue, and his freudian slip, both of which help reveal Benson-Pope as a liar.

Of course, for the issue of public service neutrality, it doesn’t matter if Benson-Pope is a liar or not, because Helen Clark has publically stated that it was a mistake that Ms Setchell’s job application was processed in the first place. In Clarks eyes, if your partner works for National, you should be disqualified for working for the public service. So much for public service neutrality.

Why is Labour against public service neutrality, and why did they choose to sack Ms Setchell. Andrey Young provides the answer saying “the unspoken question would have had more force; do you relise that your new communications manager will be working closely on some of the campaigns on sustainability and carbon-neutrality we feel certain that the ministery will be planning before the election next year? If Labour had nothing to hide, it would have nothing to worry about”. The reason is so labour can get the public service to acquise in its plans to ensure its re-election by stealing large amounts of taxpayers money for advertising campaigns to inform people of its policies help it get re-elected. It didn’t want Setchell telling her partner, who might tell John Key, what was being planned.

Labour lies again

July 18, 2007

While doing research for my blog post about Dover Samuels retiring, I discovered this post from Kiwiblog, about how Labour MP Darren Hughes lied about the incident when Dover Samuels urinated in a hotel corridor saying “there was no suggestion from the hotel that Mr Samuals was drunk”. What did the Hotel say: Samuels was “not sober” (i.e. drunk).

More recently, Steve Maharey has lied about Labours 20 hours free subsidised childcare policy, which he claimed would save the average parent with children at kindergarten $60 a week. This is despite official stistics showing 76% of parents with children at kindergarten  would get less than $20 a week from the policy. The reason why the two figures are different is because his figures are based purely on “anecdotal information”. As Farrar puts it, “he made it up”.

20 hours not free childcare policy comes into effect

July 3, 2007

Yesterday, Labour implemented its broken election promise of 20 hours free subsidised childcare. In reality, it is free only for some, as only 62% of childcare centers have joined the scheme, and of those half are increasing fees somewhere else to pay for those 20 free hours. So in reality it is free only for a select few. Whaleoil has a great new advertisement for Labour promoting the truth, not Labour spin, about the policy.