A little less conversation…a little more action

by Cameron Slater on September 18, 2017 at 12:30pm

Jacinda Ardern keeps going on about having conversations.

On becoming a republic:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern says it’s time New Zealand started having the conversation about New Zealand becoming a republic.

“I do think that we should start having the conversation. There are a lot of issues that need to be resolved on that path, and I would have liked the government to have had that conversation when the flag debate came up,” Ardern said during a special PM Job Interview with the Herald today.  – August 22 – NZ Herald


On her tax plans and flip-flops”

She also said National was scaremongering in claiming Labour planned multiple taxes “that do not exist”.

“I’m calling time on the fear and the lying because instead we need to ask the question ‘why are we having this conversation?’   – 13 September – NZ Herald

On mental health:

“Mental health is the epitome of the conversation we should be having about health care in New Zealand,” the Labour leader said.   – September 6, 1News

On coalition negotiations:

Ardern confirmed the Green Party would be the first she would have a conversation with in the event Labour needed to form a coalition.

“We have a memorandum of understanding with the Greens, so the first conversation will be with them.”  – 11 September, NewstalkZB


But it’s been done before, and it’s been done by Labour before. But what we’ve been continually saying in this last week is, it does a real disservice to voters for us to continually have conversations about the make-up of parties   – 6 August – Q+A

On the Green/Labour MOU:

It offers to voters, who we’re asking to support us, some transparency. And I think this has been one of the major issues with MMP is that we are continually drawn into long conversations about the what ifs and who might partner with who. And it tends to unfortunately dominate conversation I think sometimes more than it should. And so we are going to focus on ourselves this election. But I do think giving some transparency to voters, to say, ‘But if we are in a position to govern, yes, we will work with the Greens.’- 6 August – Q+A

On coalition arrangements:

I love this hypothetical, because, of course, this is talking through Labour forming a government afterwards. And, of course, that’s the position that we’re out there campaigning on, to be in that position to be able to do that. But, ultimately, as every election has generated, that’s the conversation you have after the election. We’ve put out a set of priorities – 22 July – The Nation

On Winston Peters:

“The point I’m trying to make is that, we’ll find our common ground. You won’t hear a lot of conversation about that from us in the election campaign. We’re going to be focussed on Labour,” Ardern said.   – 2 August

On Land tax:

Again, Guyon, what I’m trying to do is make sure we leave enough room for us to explore all the options on two things: making sure that we improve home ownership. One of the reasons we are even having this conversation is because the Government hasn’t done that.  – 5 September, Radio NZ

I don’t know who has coached her to talk like this but when you hear it over and over again it sounds contrived and rehearsed, which is it is. Her media minders have given her a grab bag of slogans to cover up for a lack of policy.

One of those slogans is to constantly deliver a “conversation” line, probably with her “concern face”.

Jacinda needs to start having a little less conversation…a little more action:

Jacinda and the Art of Saying Nothing

by Cameron Slater on September 18, 2017 at 11:30am


CORIN: They do need passion now. Cos now those who might have been hoping that you would be the politician that might finally deal with New Zealand’s issues with capital and taxing capital and fairness, and you’re not.

JACINDA: But I am still doing the work, Corin. And I will in government still make that decision, and if required legislate on that decision. The thing I’ve pushed out is the time it takes effect. Because that then means I can balance both the urgency I feel with the feedback that the public strongly gave me. And I had to listen to that, you know? And so in my mind, if it took just a matter of a few months to find that balance between the two, then that was the right thing to do.

CORIN: What else will you flip-flop on?

JACINDA: I haven’t. I’ve maintained that sense of urgency. And actually I still think there’s leadership in listening as well. And I know when I came out on this I was taking a risk. I felt strongly enough about it to take that risk. But if it was a question of simply a matter of months in order to be able to listen to people too, that seemed like it.

As an observer of political communications for well in excess of 30, almost 40 years, I have to say that’s just pure poetry.  It’s delivered with a concerned face and all the right gestures so we can “feel” her dedication.

Pity it says nothing at all.

John Key constantly got in trouble for saying exactly what he wanted to say.  But the voters forgave him many times because they felt the upside was that we would get a real answer from him.

Bill English isn’t like that, and this is why National have been sliding downwards since he’s been the party’s head-communications-head.

The problem for Jacinda is that election time is the only time people actually listen to politicians.  They don’t just go for ‘the vibe of it’.  They want actual answers.

This is why Labour might still fall short.  And they know it too.  The pressure on Labour supporters to do advanced voting is evidence of this.

More and more people are waking up and realising voting Labour isn’t the masterfully nice picture of the future that Jacinda managed to beam into their living rooms for the first three weeks.

Justice Denied – Again

by Derryn Hinch – Tuesday, 28 October 2014

IF THIS MAN had a shred of decency he’d pull his head in. Keep a low profile.  Show some remorse. Maybe even apologise to the woman he sexually assaulted in her own home while her husband, his friend, was out.

The self-centred predator I’m talking about is former All Black Grahame Thorne.

His victim, Louise Hemsley, bravely went on the Sunday program at the weekend to tell her story after having the suppression order on her name lifted.  She still couldn’t publicly identify Thorne though under antiquated laws that were designed to protect victims but now protect their assailants.

In a pre-emptive strike, and in a typical show of arrogance, Thorne gave an interview with the Herald on Sunday in which he showed no remorse, claimed the sexual activity was consensual and dismissed his conduct as ‘twenty seconds of madness’.

I presume that’s meant to be interpreted as twenty seconds of ‘mutual madness’ if the encounter was ‘consensual’.

Thorne didn’t have the guts to identify himself in this bid to clear his name in an interview riddled with self-pity and self-righteousness. And didn’t explain why he pleaded guilty (twice) to sex offences if he committed no crime. The second time, in a plea-bargain, that saw him walk free, unconvicted and legally untainted.
just so wrong

As his victim said: ‘How can you plead guilty and get away with nothing? He’s just walked away with his head held high basically. It’s just so wrong. There is no justice in that at all.’

In the newspaper interview Thorne said he had apologised to his wife and their children. ‘This has almost destroyed my marriage. My daughter and son don’t really talk to me. They think I am a crim’.

He said his wife was ‘sort of’ supporting him, but ‘I know exactly how she is feeling’.

Maybe that’s given him an insight into how somebody else’s wife is feeling.

He also whinged: ‘I’m on pills for high blood pressure. I could hardly lift my arm at one stage. I put on 10kg in six months’.

According to Louise Hemsley, this is what happened on the day of Thorne’s ‘twenty seconds of madness’ which actually went on for some minutes. Why she says the former All Black is ‘a dirty bastard and people should know’.

Thorne struck up a friendship with her husband. Over a three-year period, he visited their home half a dozen times, but always with someone else.

On the day of the incident, her husband wasn’t home and she was about to leave to do some shopping with her daughter. When her daughter went to get the mail from the end of the long drive, Thorne followed Louise inside and ‘he just grabbed hold of me from behind. He was tall and towered over me. I said: “What the hell are you doing?” And he said: “But you are so lovely”. It was horrible. His hands were all over me’.

push him off

She said: ‘He kept pushing his tongue in my mouth, pulling my head back and sticking his tongue down into my mouth and I was trying to push him off. His hands were all around my back, his hands down the back of my knickers. I was totally shocked. It took me by surprise. But I wasn’t scared because I knew my daughter was about.

‘I was trying to push him off and he took my hand and put it on his what’s-it and he said to me: “This is what you are doing to me”. I pulled my hand off and said: “Leave … just go!”

Her husband then arrived home, and the men started chatting. She said she didn’t say anything to her husband about the incident in case he ‘overreacted’.

‘I just felt sick and walked out of the house’. Later she told her husband Brian and they went to the police.

I first broke this story and named Thorne some months ago. Coincidentally, I was in New Zealand on Sunday night to watch Louise Hemsley’s story go to air.

It comes as several other victims have gone to court to have suppression orders on their names lifted and as they try to get the restrictions lifted from the names of their attackers.

Ruth Money from the Sensible Sentencing Trust said: ‘The suppression rules need to be reviewed. You are innocent until proven guilty but once you have been proven guilty, why is your name suppressed? Why is your name hidden?’

Why indeed. On both sides of the ditch it is a travesty of justice.

Footnote:  Keep this in mind when contemplating the mindset of Grahame Thorne.  Four years ago, another former All Black, Robin Brooke, was accused of groping a 15-year-old girl in Fiji on New Year’s Eve and assaulting a 17-year-old male who tried to intervene on her behalf. He was not charged but apologised for his behaviour on New Zealand television.

When his name came out, another woman claimed that when she was 18 she awoke to find Brooke having sex with her after a test match against Australia in Christchurch in 1998.

Asked for his comments on that case, Grahame Throne said the revelations about Brooke had made him question his past.

‘I did think “did I actually rape anyone?” I was worried, but it never happened. Sometimes you don’t know whether you did actually do it, in the sense of where the line is. But no-one ever, ever complained’.

Somebody did this time.

Welfare fraudster Metiria Turei still has no shame

by Cameron Slater on September 17, 2017 at 8:30am

fraud metiria turei

Metiria Turei still has no shame.

Metiria Turei has thrown her full support behind a change of Government in her first public speech since standing down as Greens co-leader.

On Saturday Ms Turei was back on the campaign trail, speaking to a crowd in Otara.

“We have a welfare system in this country that is broken,” she said, echoing the confession that drove her out of Government in August.

After admitting to benefit fraud to support her family 20 years ago, Ms Turei made the decision to step down with “extreme scrutiny” from the revelation mounting on her family.

But she vowed to keep fighting New Zealanders to “take their country back”.

“This cruel penal welfare system has been growing now for 30 years and this election is our best chance to fix it,” she said on Saturday.

Ms Turei also didn’t miss an opportunity to take a subtle dig at Labour leader Jacinda Ardern, who distanced herself from the Greens after the benefit fraud admission.

“It is our vote that is going to create a good Government – not just a different Government – a good Government,” she said.

“It is only the Greens who will end poverty in Aotearoa.

“You’re not allowed to house your own whanau in this country anymore,” she said, referring to state housing tenants not being allowed to house homeless relatives.

“That’s shameful, that’s a disgrace.”

What Metiria “No Shame” Turei doesn’t understand is that what is shameful and a disgrace is scumbag fraudsters like her ripping off the welfare system for personal enrichment. The money she took illegally was money that was not available to help people in genuine need.

She shows no remorse, no shame and should be charged. I bet she hasn’t even paid it back yet.

The last thing this government needs is a government supported by a party that endorses and celebrate fraudsters like Metiria Turei.

Labour: No more taxes except the taxes we already talked about, except the ones we won’t, maybe

by Cameron Slater on September 15, 2017 at 1:30pm

Confused members of nonprofit body Irrigation New Zealand are contacting IrrigationNZ asking if a water tax IS going ahead, following Labour’s announcement on tax plans today.

While Labour’s tax statement is being badged ‘no new taxes this term’ , the water tax is in fact one of five new taxes that will go ahead if Labour wins the next election.

IrrigationNZ is calling on Labour to reconsider their plans.

IrrigationNZ CEO Andrew Curtis said: ‘Labour’s announcement on its tax plans today does nothing to address widespread conerns on a water tax. It seems Labour are still pressing ahead with the tax although their re-issued tax policy is unclear and confusing. There’s still no further detail, no decision on the rate, and no analysis of the impact of this tax on farmers, growers, the public and New Zealand’s economy.’

‘IrrigationNZ has been asking 16 questions about the water tax since it was announced, under the banner Labour: Let’s Answer This [attached]. Today’s announcement provided no more information.’

The proposed water tax deserves more scrutiny and analysis before being introduced. Voters deserve to understand the details and implications of this tax before the election.’

IrrigationNZ does not support a water tax as its proposed because:

It does not apply to all commercial users of water.

It targets certain groups like irrigators which skews the funding and distribution of the tax, meaning it will fail to address some of the country’s most polluted rivers It does nothing to address urban water pollution issues

It is likely to result in unintended consequences, such as more intensive farming to pay for it

It penalises the people who are already cleaning up rivers

The whole announcement was a bit of a clusterwhatsit.   The headline was there would be no new taxes until 2020, with the small text underneath containing a disclaimer “with the exception of those we have already committed to”.

So now we still don’t know what the hell Labour is doing.

Good to see them in their usual flight of incompetence.   Jacinda needs to get a damehood for talking non-stop and not saying anything for nearly a month.   But now that the pressure comes on the usual “talent” are stepping up to do the job, we can all see the “new” Labour party are still the same bunch of clowns.

The last week should be good.  It will get nasty…ier still.

Jacinda and Grant’s little problem with their no new taxes pledge

Yesterday Labour was forced into a flip-flop over taxes. They’ve promised no new taxes until the after the next election. There are several caveats though.

The first is that the seven taxes they’ve already announce stand…so no new taxes means no new taxes except these ones…

Labour’s undefined tax policies left them vulnerable to National attack ads which warned of seven new taxes or tax hikes. Based on the most recent polls National’s strategy appeared to be working.

Now that Labour has backed down on implementing any previously unannounced taxes in its first term, what’s left of those seven scary taxes?

 Capital Gains Tax
 Land tax
 Inheritance Tax
 Water tax
 Income tax
 Regional fuel tax
 Emission trading scheme


Labour finance spokesman Grant Robertson today kicked the first three into touch further than an Otago full back with the southerly behind him.

Capital gains tax, land tax and inheritance tax – All are politically difficult to sell but Jacinda Ardern had made a “captain’s call” to leave them on the table for its tax working group.

By guaranteeing that none of those working group recommendations will be implemented until 2021, they are effectively gone for his election cycle.

The water tax – Scaring farmers up and down the country – stays. But given farmers aren’t big Labour voters and polls have shown broad urban support that shouldn’t dent Labour’s potential vote.

Income tax – It was always debatable as to whether that should have been on National’s list. Labour has been up front about reversing National’s tax cuts which take effect next April.

But because they’ve already be passed as legislation National says this represents a tax hike. Whether this is legit or semantics is likely to depend on your political leaning.

Regional fuel tax – This stays although its only ever applied to Auckland. Mayor Phil Goff campaigned on this issue but National wouldn’t legislate to let him do it. The money would be used to fund Auckland transport solutions.

Emission trading scheme (ETS) – We’re paying for climate change whether we like it not and both Labour and National have signed up to a global agreement on this. But National has exempted agriculture as an industry of national importance. Labour says it will bring farmers into the ETS by the end of their first term.

Then there is the track record of politicians who have pledged no new taxes.

So, when a politician comes at you and promises that there will be no new taxes or no increases in existing taxes there is a good chance they are lying.

Never trust a politician who is promising no new taxes or no tax increases. They simply cannot be believed.

What needs answering now…is if they’ve cancelled all their new planned taxes, then how are they going to pay for all their promises?

E-Cigarettes Can Increase Risk Of Stroke Or Heart Attack, Research Suggests

New research has indicated that there may be adverse health effects associated with the use of e-cigarettes. The devices have become wildly popular throughout the world in recent years, in part due to perceptions that they are relatively harmless, or that they help smokers to kick the habit. Globally, the market for e-cigs is set to be worth £25 billion ($33bn)worldwide in less than four years’ time, and £4.45bn ($5.9bn) in the UK alone.

However, research by a team in Sweden has questioned the relative safety of e-cigarettes, with scientists arguing that those containing nicotine may increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

Fifteen volunteers who’d never used e-cigarettes before took part in an experiment, with tests revealing an increase in blood pressure, heart rate and arterial stiffness 30 minutes after using them. The test results of those who’d used e-cigarettes without nicotine reported no such effects.


Credit: PA

Dr Magnus Lundback of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet, a medical university in Stockholm, said: “The number of e-cigarette users has increased dramatically in the last few years. E-cigarettes are regarded by the general public as almost harmless. The industry markets their product as a way to reduce harm and to help people to stop smoking tobacco cigarettes. However, the safety of e-cigarettes is debated, and a growing body of evidence is suggesting several adverse health effects.

“The results are preliminary, but in this study we found there was a significant increase in heart rate and blood pressure in the volunteers who were exposed to e-cigarettes containing nicotine. Arterial stiffness increased around threefold in those who were exposed to nicotine-containing e-cigarettes compared with the nicotine-free group.”

It was noted that the effects of the nicotine-based e-cigarettes were temporary, but the researchers weren’t that through repeated use, it’s possible they could become permanent.


Credit: PA

None of the members of the 2016 experiment were heavy smokers (maximum 10 cigarettes per month) and none had used e-cigarette products before. The arterial stiffness (linked to strokes) found in those who had used nicotine e-cigarettes is also found in regular smokers, though Lundback warned of the dangers chronic use might bear, as well as the reality that cigarette companies have latched onto the perception of e-cigarettes as safer and are making the most of it.

He continued: “The marketing campaigns of the e-cigarette industry target current cigarette smokers and offer a product for smoking cessation. However, several studies question the e-cigarette as a means of smoking cessation, and there is a high risk of double use, where people use both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes.

“Furthermore, the e-cigarette industry also targets non-smokers, with designs and flavours that appeal to a large crowd, even the very young, and that carry the risk of a lifelong nicotine addiction. The e-cigarette industry is expanding on a global scale. Some calculations suggest that in the USA alone, the e-cigarette industry will surpass the conventional cigarette industry within the next few years.”

Gower on Labour’s bad poll result

by Cameron Slater on September 13, 2017 at 1:00pm

Patrick Gower is spot on with his analysis:

It is official: Labour has been swallowed up by a tax vortex of its own making.

The latest Newshub-Reid Research poll showing a rise by National shows its relentless attacks are beating Labour’s relentless vagueness.

National’s scare tactics are working.

Labour’s vagueness on tax is not working.  

The politics of the campaign have recently been all about Jacinda Ardern and tax. Not about health, housing or water quality.

Steven Joyce’s kamikaze attack may even have helped.

It has been attack politics at its worst – but it has let National set the agenda.

In this National has managed to get back to where it was on the Newshub-Reid Research poll in the glow of its cash-bribe Budget.

Part of Labour’s problem is that it keeps ruling certain tax variations out during heavy interviews. That keeps the story going.

And the problem now is there is no way out for Labour – it cannot backtrack on this.

It has to take its vague tax policy all the way to the election – and National will hack at it every step of the way.

Labour must find a way out of the tax vortex. Suggestions on back of an envelope to J.Ardern of Mt Albert please.

Who knew that attack politics works, huh?

The left wing blogs are all calling for negative attacks from Jacinda Ardern. I hope she listens and goes nasty.


Mardi Langwich week: Te Ray-Oh Mowe-re Orah

Guest post 


IT’S MAORI LANGUAGE WEEK and I’m a supporter of Maori language. I always have been; ever since a Ngai Tahu kaumatua took an interest in my interest in ancient Maori culture sitting there at the Canterbury museum drawing intricate Maori carvings hour after hour into a sketch book on my lap. Te Reo enriches NZ and Maori but I have some things to say about the regime of “correct pronunciation” today of Maori words.

“Correct Maori pronunciation” is a myth!

It’s a modern pakeha construct. There was no Maori centralisation. Even the idea of “New Zealand” (actually “Nova Zelandia” or “Zeland” or “Zeeland” -more correctly we should have been “New Sealand”) was never known as “Ao-te-aroa” -which was only a regional tribal variation of some groups.


Maori assimilated hundreds of pakeha words that they ‘Maori-ised’ (Cook- “Kuki”) as did Europeans who ‘Anglicised’ Maori words (“Mow-ree”). So the dialectical pronunciations by pakeha today of Maori words is simply an identical repeat of Maori processes in language that were varied and disparate in their culture as in ours. Maori in the North and South Islands and on Rakiura (only one of its Maori place names) -even inside each of the islands – had different pronunciations and meanings.

Southern Maori had more vowels and even completely different words for the same things. Ditto Chatham Is. Maori who migrated from the South Is. Christchurch was not known as “Otautahi” which was merely a small place within a huge district that had many other place names related to food gathering: Taumutu Waiora Papanui etc

“Maori” itself means something like “ordinary person” and the varying use of words (as with the ‘rolling r’ of the south or the modern upward pakeha/Maori inflection or “chewy Nu Zulun” dialects in different groupings of New Zealand as characterised by “Lynn of Tawa”) is an inevitable human evolution of the sounds and usages of words never frozen in time. This is true of “Maori language” itself which changed and evolved from Eastern or Western Polynesia (perhaps the Marquesas or the Society Islands or Tahiti or even Fiji, Samoa and Tonga) until it was effectively a different -but understandable- “foreign” language in the same way that sixteenth-century Old English is to New Zealanders today.

And let’s not get started on Australian “English.”

So whether it’s “jandal” (“Japanese Sandal”) or “Kiwifruit” (the Chinese “mihoutao” known during my childhood as the “Chinese gooseberry”) or “Tarrah-naky” for “Tah-ra-naki” or “Rah-mati” for “Rowe-matty” –language is a tide and as fluid as the moana. Let’s not wear concrete gumboots as we slosh about the shallows of awa gathering our cultural kai or taonga as we evolve 21st century New Zealand cultural diversity which includes the rich and deep vein of Maoritanga in all its own diversity


– John Stringer, Te Wai Pounamu

The true scale of Labour’s lies

(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

Guest Post

Most of us will lie; sooner or later, for one reason or another. It’s the scale of the lie that matters and Labour are lying: Bigly.

Why would they do that? How would they expect to get away with lying to the public? Well, a certain Austrian fellow once said something on the subject: “In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility…people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”

I’ve been hurting myself reading Labour’s Fiscal-Forecast; so you don’t have to. I spotted the small lie soon enough: there seemed to be money for jam, money for tea, money for you and money for me. Money, money, money. Everywhere. But there’s a catch.

The individual amounts glow from the page of the Fi-Fo, but they are meaningless unless applied in context to the total wealth available: the Gross Domestic Product. I found the numbers I wanted innocuously labeled: memo item: nominal Domestic Product, but the projections looked wrong, very wrong. The scale of projected growth in the economy looked unbelievable, unachievable unless gold is found again in Gabriel’s Gully. The average growth in the economy, year-on-year, in Labour’s books was well over 4% — that’s pure nonsense; most economists are projecting less than half of that, some say much less. Here’s the relevant part of the Fi-Fo; I calculated (roughly) the percentage increases and posted them above Labour’s numbers:

And there, in plain sight, is the small fib. Can you see it? It’s the word ‘nominal’.“Nominal” has a precise meaning in economist’s language: It means including inflation. It’s normally expressed as a rate, in percentage terms, rather than applied as whole numbers. The difficulty is: inflation is not wealth creation, it is dilution of money value in the economy. If inflation was wealth Venezuela would be the richest country on earth. To put it in the context of Labour’s propaganda spreadsheet; everybody seems to be getting more money, but what they are getting is worth less.

Going back to numbers in the Fi-Fo, armed with my new understanding of Robbo’s mickey-mousey sums and meaningless riches, is a revelation; several items showing increases in spending under Labour are actually decreases after allowing for Robbo’s hidden and unannounced inflation shenanigans. For instance: After including the shadow-minister’s  estimates including inflation over the period of the Fi-Fo (close to 7.5% over the four years projections) “Defense” is in for a caning; the current spend $2286M should increase to $2459M but it doesn’t, Robbo only allocated $2372M for the military. That is, effectively, an $87M decrease in funding, but who cares? That just means there’s less money for flying helicopters into remote valleys and launching attacks on women and children, plus, there’s less for Nicky Hager to fantasise about. Next item: “Law and Order”, should increase from $4435M to $4776M; but it doesn’t—it comes in at $4686, that’s getting close to $100M less for Law and Order funding. ‘So what?’ will be the predictable Labour response on this anomaly; ‘less people will be stealing bread to survive than they were under National, we won’t need as many coppers’.

Then there’s the doozy, and she’s a real beauty I can tell you; “Housing and Community Development”, yes; ‘Housing’ the very subject the opposition and the media (same thing) have bashed National about for over eighteen months, competing with each other to come up with the biggest tear-jerk story, the juiciest Tory monstrosity. Here’s how it works out: Current Spend $2215M should increase with inflation to $2383M, but comes in after Robbo’s calculations at $2357; that’s nearly $30,000,000 less for the hapless homeless. The tear-jerk’s on you; Labour supporters, get yourselves a sleeping bag, a good one.

Now: to the big lie. BIG. BIG. LIE.

The Fi-Fo is replete with impressive graphs and pretty pictures; and we need to talk about one of them. What it purports to show is Grant and Cinda’s clever work. You see; despite the misleading figures they tried to blind us with earlier, the Dynamic Duo still don’t possess enough cash for all the lollies they hope to hand out to their mates, so they’re just going to take it, or withhold it, from ordinary working Kiwi’s, refusing to follow through on National’s tax-cut package. They’ve made no secret of this.

So, here’s the graph; entitled “ADDITIONAL REVENUE”, isn’t it cute? The dark red section is your money—now theirs. The one little bar on the left denotes extra income derived in the current financial year, it’s just a baby cos’ it hasn’t had a full year of sucking your wallet. What’s not to like? It’s nice and even and, really, what sort of meany would deny the helpless and homeless, the wracked and ruined, a mere $2B to help with social evils? That’s about where the bar-graph levels off.

Trouble is: It’s Dishonest. Grant and Cinda didn’t want you to see a truthful bar-graph, and they still don’t want you to see an honest one: The graph says “The figure below sets out the additional sources of revenue… That is untrue: We know it’s untrue. Completely and utterly untrue. Because they plan to take more, much, much more than $2 billion.

The Tooth-fairy is doing a merry-dance, teasing all and sundry about her ‘working group’ and their plans; she’s dancing the maypole to distract you. While it’s important, and we all want to know, what sections of the community will be hit with new levies, and who will be worst off; the thing that is most important is the actual cost. How much extra tax under Socialist-‘Cinda? Think eye-watering, think huge, think about how you’re going to pay 22% more tax within the next four years, because that’s the amount they’re coming for, and we know it’s the amount they seek because it’s right there in Labour’s numbers.

$17 billion dollars increase! ($16,964,000,000 to be precise)

We will pay, on average, an extra $108 per week tax under Labour to raise the amount necessary to fund Cinda and Grant’s socialist wet-dream. $5660 per year more than now.

To put things in perspective, and show the true scale of Labour’s lies I reproduced the “ADDITIONAL REVENUE” graph from above on an honest, factual basis and it appears below, but be warned; it is scary. It might even break your machine. You may need to turn your screen sideways to see it; such is the magnitude of the lie. It may make you feel sick, so perhaps you could rush to the refrigerator before you view it and grab yourself a glass of milk.

Ladies and Gentlemen…may we never hear the awful words “We won. You lost. Eat that” coming from the lips of Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson because, if we do, this is what we get: