Labour called ‘lying losers’ over Sir John pettiness

There have been a number of attacks on John Key after his knighthood was announced in the Queen’s Birthday honours. These have largely come from Labour associated sources.

One of these attacks was in a Standard post Arise Sir John, which set the tone for many dirty comments there.

While no party seems to want to associate with Martyn Bradbury he also blasted the knighthood in Why I will never call John Key Sir. Ever:

This vacant optimism merchant banker whose laid back persona struck a chord with middle NZs anti-intellectualism made this country far worse for the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us.

That sums up a common level of pettiness and bitterness in New Zealand politics.

David Farrar blasts another example in Lying losers:

What a bunch of lying embittered losers.

Once she was out of politics, John Key gave Helen Clark the highest Honour there is – Order of New Zealand. He supported her campaign for UNDP Administrator and gave her 100% support in her campaign to be UN Secretary-General. He also knighted Michael Cullen and gave him significant board appointments.

Key is retired and out of politics. But the nasty losers at Labour are so choking on their bile they actually authorise an advertisement smearing and attacking him for getting a knighthood. Have you seen anything so petty before? They also repeat their lie about taking $1.7 billion out of the health sector when in fact Vote Health increased $4.8 billion in nominal terms, $3.0 billion in real terms and by over 10% in real per capita terms.

This was in reference to this post on the Young Labour Facebook page:


In the fine print at the bottom…


…is an authorisation notice: Authorised by Andrew Kirton, 160n Willis Street, Wellington

Kirton is Labour’s General Secretary so this attack on Key seems to be authorised by the Labour Party.

I’m not a fan of titles, but using Key’s knighthood announcement as an excuse to attack Key’s record in this manner looks bad for Labour.

Labour and Greens support knighthood, oppose knighthoods

John Key was quick to suggest a knighthood for Richie McCaw after the world cup win. It has been reported that McCaw turned down a knighthood after the 2011 world cup, a wise decision.

Key had reinstated knights and dames into New Zealand’s honours system after Labour scrapped them in 2000.

Both Labour and Greens have supported a knighthood for McCaw, despite opposing knighthoods in general. They say it’s appropriate in the current honours system. This is an odd position for them to take.

NZ Herald reports: Support of McCaw knighthood ‘not vote for honours’

Prime Minister John Key has confirmed he will offer McCaw a knighthood after the veteran All Black led NZ to two World Cup victories in a row.

Key’s position is clear – and I disagree with his support of knighthoods/damehoods and his public promotion of a knighthood for McCaw, it’s not appropriate at all.

Labour leader Andrew Little said a knighthood would be appropriate for McCaw, but added that the issue should not be debated in public.

Labour deputy leader Annette King said yesterday that her party’s support for knighting McCaw did not reflect its position on the honours system. She said it was an appropriate honour because knighthoods were part of the existing system.

Ms King said Labour’s policy on the issue had not been reviewed for 15 years.

“Our policy was to abolish them, they have been brought back, and we haven’t addressed it again since,” she said. “No doubt at a suitable time we will look back into it.”

Green Party co-leader James Shaw agreed that formal recognition “in the order of” a knighthood would be appropriate for McCaw “as long as we have that system”. His party wanted an honours system that reflected NZ’s unique culture and identity.

Labour and Greens have put themselves into a silly position, supporting something they oppose in general.

The only sensible one in this is a leader from across the Tasman.

New Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed yesterday that he would remove the titular honours, reversing his predecessor Tony Abbott’s decision last year.

McCaw doesn’t need an archaic title.

‘Richie McCaw’ is all the recognition the man needs. It’s a unique honour earned.

Our politicians should not try and attach a silly ‘sir’ to his current glory.

Putting something in front of his name would just lump McCaw in with the silly title club. His emminence deserves to stand on it’s own.