Ethical MisBehaviour a key issue.

HOW MANY SHARES DO YOU REALLY OWN?

Answer: I can't remember. It could be 20-25000. It might be 50000. Oh gosh I remember now it was 100,000. Mind you I had to be pushed to admit it though. - John Key being slippery yet again.

This press release deserves a lot more publicity than the Herald will give it.

It would appear that there is one rule for Winston and another less rigid one for John Key and his money trader colleagues.

Labour has accused John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares amid revelations the National Party leader failed to fully disclose his interests.

Mr Key's interests became an issue earlier this year when Labour claimed a conflict of interest because he had asked parliamentary questions about the Government's planned buyback of the country's rail tracks while he still had a shareholding in the rail operator.

Despite his role at the time as National's associate transport spokesman, he did not disclose his shareholding.

When Mr Key was questioned on the issue this year he said his family trust had held 30,000 shares in the company, but had sold them on June 9 and June 12, 2003.

He said his questions and comments never led to any gains from the company's share value.

But Finance Minister Michael Cullen today released correspondence and share register information contradicting several of Mr Key's claims.

The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.

Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key told One News his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003.

But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.

"Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep," he said.

"Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total."

Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned.

The papers released by Dr Cullen show Mr Key personally bought 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in May 2003 after he had actively pursued information from the Government on the company.

He sold those shares five weeks later for $51,000 -- more than double their $22,500 purchase price.

However, 50,000 shares bought by his family trust in February 2002, were sold in June 2003 at a loss of $132,000.

Dr Cullen said Mr Key should have declared his shareholding to Parliament and his failure to do so was unethical.

"John Key lied because he knew he had something to hide," he said.

"Mr Key was in fact commenting publicly on Tranz Rail, meeting with bidders for the rail track and vigorously pursuing the release of commercially relevant information all while being an undisclosed shareholder in the firm."

One News has just run the revelation that John Key lied to the public and to Parliament about the extent of his shareholding in Tranzrail while using his position to ask questions about the Government’s intentions for rail.

More importantly, it seems he met with Rail America in his capacity as National’s transport spokesperson to encourage the company to go ahead with its intention to purchase Tranzrail. He said in a newsletter that he hoped:

the interest shown by Rail America will be picked up by others.

Having pumped the sale without declaring his interest, he then divested of 50,000 Tranzrail shares, doubling his money within five weeks.

The public needs to know what went on during that meeting with Rail America. We also need to know the full details of all Key’s holdings and an investigation needs to be held into whether he has misused his position for financial gain anywhere else.

Given one of National’s favourite taunts over the last three years has been ‘corruption’, one can only hope the media will see real corruption for what it is.

Dr Cullen said Mr Key had spent a lot of time attacking Prime Minister Helen Clark's credibility over the New Zealand First donations scandal, but had covered up his own actions.

"For him to have in effect grossly misled both the media and the public on this I think raises that issue of trust yet again," he told reporters.

"Clearly Mr Key was not simply not forthcoming, he actually lied."

Refreshing Honesty

This weekend's Agenda programme allowed Maurice Williamson the opportunity to display refreshing tory honesty about the effects of the much vaunted National Party tax cuts policy on the worker's wallet.
While John Key promises everyone a $50.00+ a week tax cut Maurice explained why it was needed- "to pay the tolls that would be levied on N.Z. roads when, under National, they would be semi-privatised under the PPP schemes that underpin the National Party policy documents."
What the N.Z. taxpayer now sees is that "there ain't no free lunch under a tax cut regime" for under such a regime the need to pay tolls (private enterprise taxation) for the use of public facilities becomes obvious as under the PPP schemes the private enterprise"partner" is allowed to tax the public (and claim against the taxpayer for any shortfalls ) to pay for the costs of the roads, the schools, the hospitals and other infrastructure a National Party Government, in partnership with Private enterprise, chooses to build.
It is interesting to note that where-ever such PPP infrastructure building schemes have been in operation (Australia, UK) the taxpayer is forced to bail the Business sector out - effectively paying twice or more over for the facility.
One must thank Maurice for his refreshing honesty when he said that he knew that no one would object to paying $50.00 a week in tolls as part of one's normal household expenses. At least we now know the reasoning behind the tax cut policy - to allow the taxpayer the ability to pay big business for their largesse in donating to the National Party coffers.
Mind you, it is good to see John Key swinging again in typical flip - flop manner over Maurice's out burst of political honesty. It just goes to show that the pretender has an ill fitting set of crosby-textor borrowed clothing. It is about time the un-blinkered observers started shouting that he has no clothes. But that might be all too honest.

Which Head Tells the Truth? Does two out weigh one?

Watch Slippery John, with the Crosby-Textor spinners taking control, attempt to deflect the media attention away from the not so subtly secret agendas revealed by the arch controller, English and minion Lockwood Smith to flog off the family silver to the highest bidders and allow private enterprise to levy taxes, in the form of tolls and increased charges, on each and every NZ citizen once Key & co get their hands on the levers of government.
The old adage that any spin is better than facing the truth will be clearly demonstrated from today on as National tries to disguise the falsity of their public policy statements.
The jettisoning of Bill English from the Nat's pirate ship won't help Slippery John recover from this series of, for the first time, honesty from his closest associates.


The revelation that John Key is not talking from the same script as his closest advisers and colleagues demonstrates clearly that he is no more than the smiling "bagman", "snake oil salesman" for the package designed and wrapped by Bill English and Lockwood Smith. Slippery John has been assigned the job of selling the wrapping while Bill and Lockwood conspire to keep the reality of their plans hidden until too late for the electorate to back out of the contract being offered by the bagman.
Bill and Lockwood have placed on record, despite post caucus denials, the real policies of the National Party... borrow against tomorrow, flog off the family silver, remove the safety nets of welfare and social services that have been hard fought for and then claim that they had a "mandate" to do so.
To fudge and hedge with such phrases as "not in the first term of a National Government" is to state "but definitely in the next time we have the power we'll rape and pillage the possessions of the people and pass all the responsibilities of the State to private contractors and businesses."
With two of the National Party's "shadow cabinet" saying we have a secret privatisation agenda" and one saying "that's all news to me" it would appear that the suspicions of the political sceptics are justified.

Conflict in the Engkeylish camp of Tax Cuts, asset sales and increased Borrowing.

A simple question: How does a party leader this answer these questions and maintain logic:
"How will you fund the infra-structure building you plan to do with a reduced tax take from the large tax cuts you have promised?"
Answer""By borrowing thus increasing the public debt."
Question: "But aren't you borrowing to fund the deficit created by introducing huge tax cuts?"
Answer: "No we'd be borrowing to build infra-structure."
To any intelligent listener the logic of this series of answers is as somewhat tenuous and revealing of the speaker's fundamental lack of economic logic as the increased borrowing must logically follow from the reduced income created by the tax cutting programme that he espouses. If the Government has a decreased income flow because the tax take doesn't fund the planned spending then the borrowing is necessary to fund the tax-cuts.
Then the real answer must be that given by the man John Key says he'd be happy to resign to after one term holding the reins of power - Bill English who declared in a taped interview at the National Party Conference "We'll sell State assets - i.e. KiwiBank." (Un-said by underlying the message: at least not until we've been wielding power for a term... and have convinced the public that asset stripping, like the cane was said to be, good for the state as the country's assets are best held by foreign companies.) After all selling the family silver will allow National to reduce state taxes and allow private enterprise to levy taxes in the shape of tolls and increased charges and prices.

Herald donates $500,000 to National??

One wonders if the NZ Herald's $500,000 donation (16 pages @ $30,000 per page as advertising ) to the National Party, thinly disguised as an "unauthorised" ( but fully endorsed by ) biography of John Key will be declared as income by the Party or debted against John Key's own Helensville campaign.
The 16 page "expose" of the life and times of John Key revealed very little about the man and his political philosophy apart from his desire to assume power and to join anything in an effort to secure personal advantage in his quest for power and influence. (An endorsement of the label- slippery flip flopper that has been fixed on him.)
One would hope that in the interests of political balance the Herald would now offer the same number of "responsible journalism" pages and resources to the leaders of the other political parties so that the public are fully informed about those who would be leaders?

More on Crosby-Textor scandal

This piece from The Standard is further support for the argument I have put forward since this blog started that Key is nothing more than a puppet - a hollow man controlled not just by the spin-meisters but also by the power behind his "throne", his main manipulator Bill English hence the term Engkeylish to describe any text coming from the John Key puppet.

There’s a standard formula that Crosby/Textor has its clients use when damaging information comes out.

a) refuse to engage. The most senior public response to the revelation that Brand Key has been created by exactly the same people who ran Brash’s divisive, racist campaign in 2005 has come from Key’s chief of staff. No politician has commented. Key will be forced to comment during his Wednesday interviews but look for another C/T line that he will repeat in every interview – something along the lines of ‘no, look, the real issue here is why Helen Clark is so obsessed with who I get advice from when hardworking Kiwis are suffering from 9 years of overtaxation’.

b) attack the messenger. Off-the-record comments to journos from senior Nats have focused on attacking Hager’s credibility, just as they have with other journos who don’t faithful report the lines (eg Barry Soper, Greg Robertson). As with the Hollow Men, National is spreading rumours that Hager has somehow ’stolen’ National emails. Not only is that claim baseless (the Police concluded there was no theft), it also doesn’t explain who gave Hager faxes, meeting notes, and diaries.

c) misdirection. The ’stolen email’ ruse is being used again. a classic piece of misdirection. Rather than looking at how the public image of Key and National has been created and the tactics they use to shut down the informed debate which is democracy’s life-blood, political commentators are already falling for the misdirection and asking ‘who gave Hager the info’? (any fool knows it’s the English camp).

This is the same formula we saw last week when Key revealed he knows nothing of New Zealand history, the same as we saw when Key said “we would love to see wages drop“, and we’ll see it again every time the mask of Brand Kep slips.

Pigs might fly and other political tales.

cartoon from The Observer.

A recent story in the Herald trumpeted the “news” that Engkeylish had released a fourteen point policy platform which was a proof that National actually had substance and that pigs actually flew over Kumeu.
The platform was so apparently momentous that the Herald’s editor forgot to include it in the paper’s unpaid for pro National advertisement - the “unbiasedly” labeled “Porkometer” but then there was only one substantive policy among the 14 points - a pledge to award the American owned Telecom $NZ1.5 Billion to provide ultra fast broadband so, according to the reports from the New Plymouth papers, “people can access and download Mr. Key’s Bebo pages faster.”
Based on this rationale one would have to question the logic behind such a policy. As a Waitara High School student very perceptively pointed out “Anyone over 12 with a Bebo site is seriously lacking in judgement.” To argue, as Mr. Key reportedly did, that a $1.5 Billion grant to Telecom to facilitate such activity is certainly not a wise investment in the “knowledge economy.”
The rest of the Engkeylish policy positions were a series of snap frozen, ready prepared instant noodle “solutions” to poll driven asserted social issues. When one looks closely at the “solutions” one re-reads old policy recycled from the National Party policy pamphlets from the past 20 years which, no doubt, reflects the ages of those the Herald would picture as the “young faces of a Key lead National Party.” (Gerry, Lockwood, Hone Carter, Maurice, Tony, Bill, Nick.....who have been around the political traps so long now they qualify as historic trialers.)
Which, of course, brings one back to the waiting for evidence that there is substantive and credible policy coming from the National Party and that one doesn’t have to believe that pigs do fly over Kumeu on a regular basis.
However, it is allegedly getting more and more difficult for journalists to get access to John Key, to listen to his addresses to interest groups and to question him in any depth on policy as the spin-meisters are sealing him off from scrutiny so that his political inexperience and propensity to perform position flip-flops and other gaffes is not revealed to the public. His recent meetings with Business leaders in Dunedin were, reportedly, declared media free zones with the local press being invited to cover his spinmeister controlled walk-abouts which are designed to show John Key as a “real man of the people” who can “relate at the social interface with the working voter.” Unfortunately for the controllers these exchanges are proving to be as gaffe prone as before.
The Dunedin walk-about apparently had John, prompted by his spin-meister, front up to two young women at a cosmetics counter and engage them in a deep and meaningful conversation about their purchases only for the young women to ask the reporter covering the event, “Who was that again?” immediately John had been ushered away from the “photo opportunity.” Ah well he can, perhaps, take solace in the Herald stable-mate publication’s - North & South - headline story that he is “N.Z’s sexiest politician” with 28% of the polling group voting to award him the title.
With such an impact on the electorate no wonder that he is being sheltered and having to have all his positions explained by his controller in chief - Bill English.
Although Mr. English must be finding it hard to convince people that his protege has believability when the public hear him declare one thing on Monday and then contradict himself on the Tuesday because the audience has changed or the poll wind has blown past his office. One is forced to ask how can any National Party policy position be credible if on one day John Key says things like: “Climate Change is a complete and utter hoax.” then, on a different soap box, declare “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” Or on Kiwisaver ( a policy initiative National voted against.) “Kiwisaver is fundamentally flawed and merely a glorified Christmas Club.” and, on a different soapbox and to a different audience, “Kiwisaver is probably gonna be successful and not too bad.” However he won’t commit himself to stating the exact policy position National will take on Kiwisaver given National could form a government under MMP. (Another issue he can’t make his mind up on - whether to retain MMP or lurch back to the arrogance enhancing FFP system.)
So, the electorate waits for the flip-flop maestro to announce clear, unequivocal policies that are unchanged from day to day, unchanged from audience to audience and remain open to full public scrutiny and a continuously unbiased analysis from release to the election day and beyond and, of course, the pigs will continue flying over Kumeu.