The very definition of confused

John Key, aspirant to the highest job in the land, seems to have trouble keeping a straight story.

You will of course be aware of the falling wages comment - that the man said he wants to see lower wages in New Zealand, an ambition which is always a surreptitious policy objective for National governments, but rarely blurted out in public.

He quickly realised this piece of honesty was a mistake, and so tried to imply he wanted wages to fall in Australia, not in New Zealand.

That didn't wash.

Then he claimed he actually didn't say anything about wages falling anywhere, that he was misquoted. He made that claim last Wednesday.

Last Thursday, he told Havoc on bFM that he did not 'overtly remember' saying anything about wages, or where he may have said it, but that his staff had jogged his memory.(!)

Later last Thursday, on Radio Live, he said there were several possible options for what could have happened:

Now there's only a couple of options, one, I didn't say it, two, the guy misreported me and when I said, ah, rise, he wrote drop, and third is, I mean, it is possible of course, you know, he was talking in the earlier thing.

He also conceded he could have said it as a joke.

Meanwhile, Northern Media is standing by its story as reported in its original context saying,

Northern Publishing stands by the story published in the Bay Report on December 20, 2007 in which National Leader John Key was quoted as saying "We would love to see wages drop."

Our reporter was at the meeting with the Kerikeri District Business Association President Carolyne Brooks-Quan and recorded the conversation.

We have a transcript of the meeting and we are happy that the quotes printed in the story are an accurate record of what Mr Key said.

All a bit murky to me, really. I wonder why Mr Key has handled this so badly. Maybe he's rather less good at this profession than he thought.

Comments

[Whaleoil]

Murky, surely you jest. What is more murky is a party that passed a vindictive law while at the same time attempting to hide donations by calling them loans, then honouring the same donor and thinking about giving him a consulship in a place that heir apparent to the Labour party, Phil Goff is on record not once but three times saying we don't need one. Now that is what I call murky.

Murky?, that would be passing a vindictive law with the aid of NZ First who coincidentally at the same time as voting for the law is busy organising its very own large anonymous donation, incidentally which also coincided with labour "paying back" its "loan" from Owen Glenn. Now that's murky.

[burt]

Whaleoil

Hopefully once this incredibly murky story about big money, secret loans, cash for policies, cash for favours is finally sorted this "Key wants to lower your wages" (fingers in the ears yelling - It was all legal, nothing wrong occurred, Glenn is a good rich prick - la la la la) smokescreen will be gone.

And what calculating the value of an unsecured interest free loan using rates lower than home mortgage finance - wow, that's a transparent donation of $8K - NOT!

[rod]

Hey burt
You're sounding more like Matthew Hooton every day
la la la la

[anon]

You say: "John Key, aspirant to the highest job in the land, seems to have trouble keeping a straight story."

I say: "Helen Klark, holder of the highest job in the land, doesn't know whether or not she signed a painting or stole $800k.

[Murray]

Corngate, Paintergate, Speedgate, and now Owengate. FFS Helen and Winston make John look like an apprentice in the bullshit brigade.

[Felix]

I really wish we could stop using the suffix "gate" to denote a scandal.

[Adam Smith]

I think Key suffers from Bush Family Syndrome or Dubbya's Condition. He means to say one thing, but something else comes out.

Not for one minute do I think he wishes to lower New Zealand wages. Whilst I have no time for Helen Clark I do not think she has an agenda to destroy the fabric of society which many on the rabid right appear to think is the case.

[SneakyWho_am_i]

Truly though, who remembers CornGate? Who remembers PainterGate?
Apparently only the blog commenters do (New Zealand, gateway to amnesia!). :D This blog makes it look like John Key has trouble keeping a straight story. That just might be so (he is a politician after all) although I would dearly love to believe otherwise.

CornGate and PainterGate (why does everything have to end with gate actually?) are very old news by now. They're so old that you have to wonder how an individual who can't seem to ever tell the truth about anything can still be in the beehive at all, let alone.....

But I shouldn't take all kinds of cheap shots at Helen Clark, with old news about why we should never ever ever expect her to fulfill any promise to her people.
I guess if I learn anything from this article, it's that perhaps all politicians are created equal :D

The question is really whether trying to weasel out of a comment about wages (fibbing!) is equivalent to outright, blatant, habitual forgery... And I say that maybe it is.
Is an episode of fib/confusion/memory problem comparable to repeated, outright, blatant forgery??
Clearly, the author of the blog is trying to say that John is as bad as Helen.
The blog author is clearly saying that any confusion over what you've said or done is outright dishonesty, and that dishonesty is bad, and therefore that John and Helen are both totally unsuitable as leaders.

Fair enough, oh blogger, I think that it is a fair and reasonable point of view.
So if we can't vote for John or Helen, who should we vote for?
Which party will give us an honest Prime Minister, if we're going to assassinate John? Who's left?