Giuliani did not have “his facts straight”

In the ever changing story about the hush money payment to ‘Stormy Daniels’, one of Trump’s latest revolving door lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, appears to be in damage control after putting his foot in his mouth in an interview yesterday. He now claims he didn’t have his facts straight.

With issues involving Trump ‘facts’ seem to be fluid statements of convenience, but as they change it is difficult to differentiate mistakes and lies. A lawyer speaking on a serious legal matter involving the President should have his facts straight before going on public television.

Reuters: Trump lawyer Giuliani defends legality of porn star payment

Hours after President Donald Trump said his lawyer Rudy Giuliani did not have “his facts straight,” the former New York mayor issued a statement on Friday saying $130,000 in hush money paid to an adult-film star before the 2016 election was not an election law violation.

Giuliani late on Wednesday revealed that Trump had repaid Cohen for the $130,000 the lawyer had provided to Daniels. Trump previously had denied knowing about the payment.

The next morning, Trump said on Twitter that Cohen was paid back through a monthly retainer, not campaign funds, to stop Daniels’ “false and extortionist accusations.”

Giuliani on Thursday had connected the payment to Stormy Daniels by the president’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to keep quiet about a 2006 sexual encounter she said she had with Trump to the election, remarks that raised the possibility that the transaction violated federal election law.

“There is no campaign violation. The payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the President’s family. It would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not,” Giuliani said in a brief statement “intended to clarify the views I expressed over the past few days.”

Giuliani in a TV interview on Thursday wondered what would have happened if the Daniels’ claim of an affair had come up in a debate between Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, adding, “Cohen made it go away. He did his job.”

“Rudy is a great guy, but he just started a day ago. But he really has his heart into it. He’s working hard. He’s learning the subject matter,” Trump said.

“He’ll get his facts straight,” Trump added, though he did not specify the statements by Giuliani to which he was referring.

If Giuliani did not have ‘his facts straight’ that is appalling incompetence for a lawyer dealing with something like this.

Even Fox News raises questions in Giuliani clarifies statements on Stormy payment

Rudy Giuliani put out a three-point clarification Friday regarding comments he made in bombshell interviews this week about the hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels and more, just hours after President Trump said the latest addition to his legal team would “get his facts straight.”

Notably, Giuliani did not walk back the statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen, in his clarification on Friday. But he tried to clear the air on several other potentially problematic statements.

Earlier Friday, Trump defended Giuliani as a “great guy” who “just started days ago” and said “he’ll get his facts straight.”

“When Rudy made the statements—Rudy is great, but Rudy has just started and he wasn’t familiar with everything,” Trump said Friday in a press gaggle at Joint Base Andrews. “He’s a special guy and he understands that this is a witch hunt.”

Also from Fox – Judge Nap: Giuliani’s Claim That Trump Didn’t Know About Stormy Daniels Payment Is ‘Unworthy of Belief’

On “Fox & Friends,” Napolitano said that Giuliani’s claim that Trump gave Cohen $130,000 and didn’t know where it was going is “unworthy of belief.”

He said it’s up to the American public to decide if they believe Trump is the kind of person who would “pour money down a hole” without asking to whom the money was going and for what purpose.

“How would Michael Cohen know that Stormy Daniels needed to be silenced?” he added.

Napolitano said the good news is that if the money came from Trump’s personal funds, then Giuliani is correct that there was no campaign finance violation.

“But it does create a problem because the president has said that he knows nothing about this. This is a problem between the president, his personal morality, his wife and his base on one side, and the president and the law on the other side,” Napolitano explained.

Whatever the facts, and Trump is known to often not care about facts and to bareface lie, this just makes aspects of his presidency more of a farce – a dangerous farce given what can be at stake.


The irresponsibility of Gower and NZ First sources

My last post was on The responsibility of forming Government and shows that Winston Peters appears to be taking his responsibilities in playing a part in forming the next Government seriously, as he should do. The country depends on it, as does Peters’ reputation and legacy.

But sensationalist opinion writer Patrick Gower (and whoever in Newshub allow him top the 6 pm news billing) has chosen to promote his unsubstantiated assertions. He claims to have senior  sources in NZ First – also acting irresponsibility if Gower is not just making things up as Winston has claimed.

On election night peters warned his party – from Newsroom Winston Peters plots a path as kingmaker:

Perhaps with former colleague Richard Prosser’s recent outbursts on his mind, Peter also sent a stern warning to members of the party to stay in line during what could be sensitive negotiations.

“To all my colleagues out there watching tonight, please don’t circumvent or foreclose on the right of your party and your colleagues to collectively decide what we must do in the future.

“Don’t make comments that will embarrass the party, don’t make comments that mean the party’s democratic processes aren’t followed.”

Prosser was dumped down the NZ First list and missed the cut so is now an ex-MP, and has already been expressing some of his opinion to media openly.

Gower has led the Newshub 6 pm news for the last two nights citing senior NZ first sources but making a number of unsubstantiated claims. Notably the online Newshub items are labelled as ‘Opinion’.

And Winston is not happy, claiming they are lies.

First on Monday night: Patrick Gower: Meet the backroom operators wooing Winston Peters:

I’ve been talking to multiple and senior sources inside all the camps and have the lowdown.

Gower makes a number of claims including:

You might assume Steven Joyce would be there but you’d be wrong… Peters hates him – and Joyce knows it, so he has already stood aside.

Also on Monday in Patrick Gower: Revealed – Winston Peters claims first scalp from National

Winston Peters has claimed his first victim should he go into Government with National – Speaker of the House David Carter.

Peters despises Carter and it will be an unwritten or unspoken demand that he will have to leave the job should New Zealand First go with National.

That sounds like nonsense.

I don’t know whether Peters despises Carter or not, they certainly clashed in parliament frequently but that may be game playing or personal.

But claiming “Peters has claimed his first victim” is a ridiculous claim when followed by “it will be an unwritten or unspoken demand”.

Gower has asserted as a fact something he just assumes. He admits he has no evidence.

Then on Tuesday Patrick Gower: Winston Peters wants utu from Steven Joyce

As becomes clear, Gower hasn’t been told anything by Peters about what he wants. And Peters has accused Gower of lying and making things up.

OPINION: Winston Peters could be out for revenge against National over their attempts to take him down during the campaign.

Gower begins with “could be” – so he is assuming or guessing. It is his opinion.

A New Zealand First source has told Newshub Peters is particularly resentful towards Steven Joyce, whom he personally detests.

Peters believes Joyce orchestrated a four-pronged attack against him by National…

Gower has no direct evidence, he is quoting hearsay from someone he claims is from NZ First – someone with an apparent agenda.

Peters believes National dropped a scandal on him.

His pension over-payment was leaked to the media. It hit him hard but didn’t knock him down.

Now he wants utu – revenge.

Again this is hearsay and conjecture stated as fact. This is very poor from Newshub’s senior political reporter.

The Newshub tip-off

The tip was given to Newshub on the Friday six weeks out from the election just as National was undertaking its co-ordinated attack on Winston Peters.

It was an anonymous phone call, from a blocked number, from a man who knew lots of details.

It could have been a public servant.

But investigations by the Ministry of Social Development, Inland Revenue and Ministerial Services, which manages staff in the Beehive, have all failed to find the leaker.

That leaves a senior crew as suspects – two ministers, Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett, as well as the Prime Minister’s chief-of-staff Wayne Eagleson.

No it doesn’t just leave those three people. No one has been found and everyone has denied responsibility.

Failing to find leakers from MSD, IRD and Ministerial Services does not rule out everyone from those departments, it just means no one was identified as a leaker. A good leaker would know how to not leave any trace.

There is likely to be others associated with Tolley, Bennett and Eagleson who are possible leakers.

And while I think it’s unlikely the leak came from Peters or someone associated with him that can’t be ruled out.

There is talk that Winston Peters wants another scalp if he is to do business with National.

“There is talk” could be anyone guessing, as many are.

Paula Bennett has been upfront about the fact she won’t be Deputy Prime Minister any more.

Stated as ‘fact’ but evidence suggests differently.

MSN: Bennett, Davis would give up deputy roles

Current Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett revealed on Tuesday she’s “not too bothered” by the chance she might lose the job as part of the negotiations.

“I love what I do, I’d still be deputy leader of the party, that’s the main thing really so we’ll just sort of make our way through it,” she said.

It’s an obvious possibility but no more than that. Deals haven’t been discussed let alone decided. The same applies to Labour’s deputy:

Kelvin Davis, currently Labour leader Jacinda Ardern’s deputy, would become deputy prime minister in a Labour-led government – unless Mr Peters wanted it.

“If it has to be, it has to be,” he said.

Again only an obvious possibility.

Back to Gower:

The sources inside NZ First have directed me today to a number of speeches Winston made recently…

It looks like Gower is being played by someone and he is willingly playing along.

This is all a clear play by NZ First to get the message out there that it’s not a done deal with National, and they’re deliberately getting the message out to raise the stakes in the negotiations.

Not clear, and not clearly by ‘NZ First’. By an unnamed source or sources with unknown party associations, with Gower’s embellishments and opinion piled on top.

Tomorrow, we see the man himself. Winston Peters is set to front up at Parliament and all the political positioning will simply go next level.

An admission Gower has not even sought any comment from Peters, he is going completely by uncorroborated secret assertions.

And Peters has responded scathingly of Gower and Newshub. On Facebook last night:

Whatever Patrick Gower and the Newshub producers are on, they should get off it.

Their TV news broadcasts about New Zealand First the last two nights have been fiction, and grossly misleading. I will not be explaining what parts are fictional. Some of it is barefaced lies.

Newshub is claiming sources that don’t exist, and is merely toying with viewers and presenting make believe instead of facts. It’s the very worst form of journalism and Newshub is not the only one doing it – sad to say.

None of it will have any bearing on New Zealand First in the coming talks around the establishment of the next government.

“The very worst form of journalism” – Newshub, Gower, fed by someone with an agenda associated with NZ First.

Gower is on Newshub now. he says that Peters wants to be seen as inscrutable. He also says that Peters is in a terrible position, quite different to his news reports.

Gower is asked about his claims and he just talks vaguely about general things, no specifics, and just laughs off Winston’s indignation and claim of lies.

The media has a responsibility to hold politicians and parties to account.

They also have a responsibility to do this fairly and honestly, and to not act as the pawns of people with agendas.

So far Peters appears to have met his responsibilities. Not so apparently someone associated with NZ First.

This is poor and irresponsible of Gower and Newshub. Forming a Government is very important and a serious process, and deserves far better from media.

Hansard facts

For Parliamentary junkies – 5 ‘favourite facts’ about the Hansard record of Parliament.

This year New Zealand Parliament’s Hansard is celebrating it’s 150th birthday!

Unsure about what exactly Hansard is? See if you can piece together the clues scattered throughout this video as the team at Parliament share their five favourite facts about our official record. Check out more about #NZHansard150 celebrations here:

(And if you’re still stuck and can’t quite figure out what Hansard is, head over to our website here:

Hagamans v Little continues

The defamation case that earl and Lani Hagaman have taken against Andrew Little continues in Wellington.

Little hasn’t been present all the time, he was in Parliament for Question Time yesterday afternoon.

Stuff: Defamation action ‘not about bankrupting’ Andrew Little, Lani Hagaman says

The wife of a hotel owner suing Labour leader Andrew Little for defamation has denied wanting to bankrupt the politician over comments he made about a Niue resort deal.

Lani Hagaman, the wife of Scenic Hotel Group founder Earl Hagaman, said receiving an apology and legal costs were her main concern, during the second day of a civil jury trial at the High Court in Wellington.

The Hagamans are seeking $2.3 million in damages for comments Little made about a $101,000 donation they made to the National Party during the 2014 election, and a contract their Scenic Hotel Group won a month later to manage the Matavai resort in Niue, which receives government funding.

Newshub: Andrew Little will pay any defamation costs from his own pocket

Mr Little says he’s taking personal responsibility and will pick up the bill should damages be awarded to complainants in a defamation case.

“I am meeting my costs. The offers I have made to settle, had they been accepted, would have been fully funded by me personally,” he said on Tuesday.

No taxpayer or Labour Party funds will be used to cover the legal fees or potential damages.

“I have a personal view about taking personal responsibility if you’re found to have done something wrong.”

He says here he is taking personal responsibility but last year had refused to apologise, even after the Auditor General, after a request to investigate by Little, found no problem with the awarding of a contract to Scenic Circle.

Little hasn’t denied making the statements but is claiming qualified privilege in making them. He has said that he has responsibilities as Leader of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, but there must also be a responsibility not to make serious accusations without any evidence.

In court Lani Hagaman has said that Little should have check facts before making the accusations.

Regardless of the outcome it doesn’t look flash for Little. He says he was only targeting the Government (serious claims without facts still looks irresponsible there) but must have been aware that his comments would look bad Hagamans and Scenic Circle.

UPDATE: Newshub: Labour leader Andrew Little gives evidence in defamation case

Mr Tizard said the Labour leader will have two defences to the defamation case.

The first is that the comments were made under qualified privilege, and the second is that “the words do not mean what the plaintiffs think they mean”.

On Little’s offers to settle:

Under questioning from his defence lawyer John Tizard, Mr Little said he became “frustrated” after trying for months to resolve the proceedings before they went to court.

“Nothing ever seemed to be acceptable,” said Mr Little.

Mr Little first offered to pay $26,000 towards legal fees and apologise, but that offer was rejected.

On March 14 this year Mr Little made another offer of $100,000 and again apologised, but that was again rejected.

Mr Little said he and his wife would have funded the six-figure offer by taking out a bank loan against their Island Bay family home.

“It was the most I could offer,” Mr Little said. The couple does not own any other property.

He apologised personally in court:

He said he did not apologise to Ms Hagaman as he had not mentioned her by name in his media statements, but during court on Wednesday he offered her an apology as she watched from the public gallery.

“I apologise to her now for any hurt,” Mr Little said.

He claimed frustration and a lack of progress in attempts to negotiate:

Mr Little said he made multiple proposals through his solicitor, but would get back rejection letters which offered scant direction on the way the Hagamans wanted to move forward.

But under cross examination he conceded that he had been sent a letter outlining the Hagaman’s demands.

Little: There was no guidance being given, it was the most bizarre form of negotiation I had ever participated in.

Newshub: He said offers to settle were flatly rejected, with little feedback given on how the couple wanted to proceed, but the Hagamans lawyer shot back.

Richard Fowler (for the Hagamans): The proposition that the Hagamans never spelt out exactly what they wanted, that’s to take your words from your evidence, is not true, is it.

Little: I don’t accept that.

Newshub: Fowler said a letter sent to Little in December, and acknowledged by his solicitor, laid out the Hagamans demands. It detailed how an apology would happen, and noted any damages would be distributed to charities.

Fowler: …that the Hagamans had never spelt out what they would require to settle is just plain wrong, isn’t it. Can you face that?

Little: Not plain wrong, I said that I’ve conceded the point that this the closest we get.

The trial will continue tomorrow.


TPPA – a simple list of facts

I posted the spin from both sides of the TPPA – the National Party versus Action Station – TPPA: ‘Facts’ for and against.

One News has a more neutral Fact check: What the TPP means for New Zealand – “here’s a simple list of facts to get you up to speed”.

  • TPP is a free-trade agreement between 12 Asia-Pacific countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam
  • TPP countries have a combined population of 800 million
  • The 11 other countries currently account for over 40 per cent of New Zealand’s exports
  • It’s New Zealand’s first FTA with the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Peru


  • Tariffs on New Zealand exports to TPP countries will be eliminated, except in two areas: beef exports into Japan and a number of dairy exports into the US, Japan, Mexico and Canada
  • On current export volumes, this will mean tariff savings of $259 million a year. New Zealand will have to remove $20m a year of tariffs on imports
  • New Zealand’s copyright period will be extended from 50 to 70 years
  • Consumers won’t have to pay more for subsidised medicines as a result of TPP
  • No change to the Pharmac model, but some administrative changes to increase transparency – won’t change ability to prioritise spending and negotiate with suppliers
  • Allows companies to take legal action against foreign governments that harm their investments, but tobacco companies are excluded and there are higher thresholds for public welfare measures such as public health, safety and the environment

-source One News

TPPA: ‘Facts’ for and against

From the blue corner, the National Party has launched a website that claims:

TPP Fact Check

Setting the record straight on the TPP

They list a few False claims…

  • FALSE: The TPP will stop future governments from regulating foreign property investment
  • FALSE: The TPP will take away our sovereignty
  • FALSE: The TPP will prevent the government from meeting its obligations to Maori
  • FALSE: The TPP will drive up the cost of medicines
  • FALSE: Supporting the TPP is a left-right issue

…alternating with some True claims:

  • TRUE: The TPP will add an extra $2.7 billion to New Zealand’s GDP by 2030
  • TRUE: The TPP connects New Zealand to the world’s fastest growing emerging markets
  • TRUE: The TPP will remove 93% of all tariffs on NZ exports to TPP countries
  • TRUE: The TPP will improve environmental protections in partner countries

Registrant of the site New Zealand National Party.

And from the red corner Action Station has launched their own site


The facts,
minus the spin.

Supported by research from the New Zealand Law Foundation, and crowdfunded by Kiwis like you. This website is designed to help everyday New Zealanders understand the TPPA.

Save us the propaganda. We demand the facts.

This website was crowdfunded by ActionStation members who think it’s critical we go into the biggest trade deal of our time with our eyes wide open.

    (They are rather qualified after all…)

    (That’s a rise of 0.9% )

And they detail an action plan designed to oppose the TPPA.

Registrant of the site is Action Station Aotearoa.

  • TPP Fact Check: Setting the record straight on the TPP (National Party)
  • TPPA: The facts minus the spin (Action Station)

Does anyone know of a site that takes a balanced look at the pros and cons of the TPPA? I haven’t seen one that has an independent comprehensive look at what it all really means that isn’t strongly for or against it.

UPDATE: One News has put together TPPA – a simple list of facts

lprent is right

Lynn Prentice is right, in a ‘Labour left’ sort of way.  No conspiracy, in an ironic sequence of comments at The Standard, showing how ‘lprent is right’.

  • tracey

    Well, in the context of the person you and I responded to, who was speaking of “one term wonder”, there is an argument they must have been referring to all mayors.

    I have lived in Auckland for over 45 years and they have always been colloquially known as the mayor of Auckland. Auckland’s mayor and so on…

    But, so as not to sit on the fence, lprent is right cos he runs the show ;)

    [lprent: Argggh don’t say that. I saw some obvious shit while moderating and made a comment about it (that doesn’t happen that often). Now look what you’ve done. I’m pretty sure that PG will have invented a conspiracy out of it by morning. After all it is his forte – making something out of nothing. Kind of like United Future – he was natural fit.

    Hmmmm I’d better stop scanning and go to bed. ]

    • felix

      “they have always been colloquially known as the mayor of Auckland. Auckland’s mayor and so on…”

      It’s all context. And it depends what part of Auckland.

    • alwyn

      “lprent is right cos he runs the show”.
      That is a reason that is totally impossible to argue with.

      It reminds me of the story of when Henry Ford II, the chairman of Ford sacked Lee Iacocca, who was at the time the President of the company.
      When Lee Iacocca tried to argue with him Henry simply told him that I can sack you because “My name is on the building”.

      I was probably only being rather pedantically picky anyway because I’ve finished all the Telegraph and Cryptic crosswords in last weeks Dom/Post issues and was a bit bored.

  • What you demonstrated was that you simply aren’t a native Aucklander, a resident immigrant from elsewhere in NZ or the world, or even someone who actually thinks about their bullshit outside of your little world.

    The old Auckland City council was a teeny area and a teeny population compared to whole of the Auckland city. It was dominated by a couple of pretty rich suburbs where some people voted. They often voted twice or more if they had businesses in the CBD, which is why the Epsom/Parnell and external business cliques tended to dominate it. Which was why we got some pretty damn flakey idiots from the right on the council, including the ever manipulable John Banks.

    Until the late influx of apartment housing and the growth of 50-60k in population in the late 90s and 00s, I think it was one of smaller people populated cities in Auckland.

    Perhaps you were thinking about the old Auckland Regional Council, which ran the cross region services.

    The Auckland Council is larger than the ARC.

    What you did was try to state something that was false to fact, and quite apparent to the Aucklanders uncomfortable enough already with this daft unworkable supershitty that bloody Act foisted on us – ignoring almost everything sensible that was in the Royal Commission’s report.

    You then proceeded to play daft semantic games. The usual response to obvious stupidity ensued. Because you pissed around, ignoring the valid arguments put to you about how daft you were, I’d expect that this will keep popping up as an example whenever you make an unthinking assertion from here on out.

    • felix

      Um, Auckland City was a small geographic area but it actually had a population larger than either Manukau or Waitakere.

      Hardly teeny.

And in fact hardly teeny in area either.

Prentice was in one of his less abusive moods, with some careful tiptoeing by others pointing out that he was wrong. Without backing up their telling him he’s wrong with any links to facts which for some is a ban-able offence 🙂 – but felix is likely to get away with it, he’s one of the usually protected resident attackers.

This final sentence from lprent could be worth remembering:

I’d expect that this will keep popping up as an example whenever you make an unthinking assertion from here on out.

I doubt many will be game to keep popping it up at The Standard.

The facts of the matter – populations as at 30 June 2010 (before Auckland was merged into a super city):

And the Auckland City area doesn’t look ‘teeny’ in comparison either:

The orange area is urban Auckland City (2010) (which includes Waiheke). The urban parts of the other three cities are grey. Areas as at 30 June 2010:

Source: Wikipedia

Further irony considering lprent’s recent accusations:

For anyone interested, Pete George announces proof of a moderator violating the policy with Eddie imposing a ban after PG made an assertion of fact without bothering to back it up with anything.

As usual the lazy fool doesn’t provide it where specified and he clearly hasn’t ‘read’ the policy.


So you made an assertion of fact and a moderator called you to provide proof on it. This is explicitly defined as being an offense in the rules of our site.

Because of your track record of avoiding providing proof of your assertions (a tactic that we call avoidance), Eddie imposed a time limit and a penalty in advance (just as I did here).

Despite having a track record of making things up and avoiding providing proof of his assertions “lprent is right cos he runs the show”. Classic.

UPDATE: I’ve added links to number sources, it was slack to leave those out, I’d meant to but forgot to add them.

In the meantime lprent has posted on this at The Standard:

I see that PG raised the same point in his usual snide fashion, and as usual not linking to his source – which means that it is useless. He also lied with numbers on the geographic area calcs by carefully removing Franklin District, Rodney District and probably a few others. I guess that was why he left out the source.

I don’t expect him to apologise for accusing me of lying, again. He seems to have a habit of accusing people of lying if he doesn’t like what they say or when he is held to account – when he can’t ban them. When show up his natural inclination seems to be to go dirty/abusive, and then waffle.

He also tried a lame excuse for getting things so wrong:

I was exaggerating a bit for effect, but Auckland city has been falling below a third of the Auckland region population for about as long as I have been around.

“Exaggerating a bit for effect” is lspeak for getting it wrong. He had said “The old Auckland City council was a teeny area and a teeny population compared to whole of the Auckland city.”

He then shows it was 33.7% (1986) to 30.6% (2006) of the greater Auckland population, nothing like ‘teeny’ even allowing for exaggeration, and still the largest of the four component cities in 2010.

Labour poverty message mangled

Social media doesn’t always work the way you want it to. Yesterday Labour posted on Facebook about poverty – “Since John Key was elected 20,000 more Kiwi children are living in POVERTY.”.

There’s that many numbers thrown around about poverty I’m not sure if that will be an effective message or if it’s just another eye-glazer.

Regardless of that when I say it this morning the Top Comments have mangled Labour’s message.

Matthew Small:

That might be true, but John Key is not to blame for all of it, some people decide to have more kids when they can’t afford it; which statistically puts the kids straight into poverty.

Surgey Teer’s”

Funny how so many people believe that if you live in poverty it is somehow the governments fault. I grew up in poverty, having to stick cardboard inside my shoes because they had holes in, always hungry, all clothes were charity and hand me downs. Theonly person who I could blame was my father and step mother, both did not work and did not want to work. They still had money for cigarettes and alcohol though!!

The only people who can change the cycle is you, individually. Work hard, take any opportunities you can. For me, the apathy of my family with regards to work made me strive for success, I did not want my children to go through the same things I did. I did not want them to grow up in a doss hole of an area ridden with crime and scum.

I would never have thought as I was growing up that I would have moved my family half way around the world and would be living in near luxury, but, I earned it and I have never took a cent of charity. I never, ever thought that I was owed something from any government. Yes, they were on the dole, it was difficult and the money was pitiful, but, it should have been less, there would have been more incentive to go and get work.

Joy Jackson:

We are a first world country with endless educational and employment opportunities. It is simplistic and defeatist to blame a government because they are not providing you with money you have not worked for. I don’t worry about the National government,

That’s not the response Labour would have wanted.


Scrolling down showed standard opposition lines that were less populazr

Mervyn John Peter Oquinn:

John Key doesn’t care about people it’s all about money

Donald John Robinson:

Why blame this government, John Key played the same game as Labour, but nearly a million lazy thick incompetent, selfish ignorant New Zealanders didn’t VOTE !!!!!!

Carol Kara:

Profits before People should be the National party slogan.

Counter message versus same old slogans.

Another problem with this is that it isn’t easy to ‘Get the facts.” There was no obvious links to any facts. Most people wouldn’t bother trying to get them.

There’s also no sign of anything on this on Labour’s home page on their website. It’s not on their News page either.

Googling “labour children poverty living” hits Labour’s Children page that has it’s last post dated 8 July 2014. Nothing on this Facebook post.

So I don’t know what facts they are claiming.

Labour have failed to win hearts and minds on their Facebook post and have failed to provide the facts that they wanted us to get. Or did they want us to get the facts?

I see faux pas and no facts. It’s a mangled message.