Is it Cunliffe of Conliffe?

This could well be because he can’t credibly explain how he’s going to pay for the baby bribe.

He tried yesterday but the figures don’t add up:

Labour Leader David Cunliffe needs to explain why he has tried to con the New Zealand public and front up about where the money would come from for his planned big spend-up, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says.

“Mr Cunliffe has been deliberately pulling the wool over the eyes of the New Zealand public by cancelling two Labour policies last week and saying that gives him $1.5 billion a year to spend,” Mr Joyce says.

“His press release of 22 January specifically states: ‘This decision frees up around $1.5 billion per annum’.

“Then yesterday, in attempting to say where the money would come from, he said: ‘Labour has recently confirmed we will no longer be proceeding with a Tax Free Zone or the GST exemption for fresh fruit and vegetables. This decision will save around $1.5 billion per year. The Best Start package will cost significantly less than this’.

“The only problem is he is completely wrong on both counts.

“There is no GST off fruit and veges in the country’s books to save, and no tax-free threshold to take out, so cancelling them doesn’t save anything.

“There are only two possibilities here: Mr Cunliffe is either deliberately trying to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes; or he doesn’t understand the most basic accounting.

“Late yesterday he started to advance the possibility that other things could pay for it. The short answer is he has no idea.

“The country has rightly become very cynical about Labour’s big spending habits, and has spent five years digging out of them.

“Mr Cunliffe needs to be straight-up about spending taxpayers’ money.” . . .

New Zealand went into recession before the global financial crisis because of Labour’s high tax, churn and spend policies.

The road to surplus has been more difficult and public debt is higher because National swallowed some dead rats to continue some of the middle income welfare.

Labour hasn’t learned from that.

It wants to not only continue middle income welfare, it wants to extend it to upper income families.

Even if that was a good idea – and it isn’t – the only way to pay for it is to increase taxes, increase borrowing and/or cut spending somewhere else.

Cunliffe missed the e off the end of Lorde’s name in a tweet yesterday. He said it was a typo.

It wouldn’t be a typo to change the u in his name to an o it would be more a Freudian slip – Conliffe is the appropriate name for someone who’s trying to con the electorate.

4 Responses to Is it Cunliffe of Conliffe?

  1. Gravedodger says:

    Labour is looking increasingly like the three wheel car Trotters used in “Only Fools and Horses”

    But when a wheel comes off a four wheel vehicle it results in sparks, road gouges and a serious expense and can involve a fatal rollover.

    Now where is Grant having that BBQ this weekend.

    Oh dearie dearie me, so sad.

    Like

  2. Willdwan says:

    Is there ever going to be an end to the buying of elections? The Left like to drone on about sustainability but we have these things every three years and the tax-payers are pretty much played out. It is so hard to get rid of the bribe, even when it proves worse than useless.

    Like

  3. Andrei says:

    If I didn’t know better I’d seriously give consideration to the idea Labour is deliberately trying to throw the next election

    Clueless, absolutely clueless

    Like

  4. TraceyS says:

    But “Princeton Said Facebook Will Lose 80% Of Users” http://www.policymic.com/articles/80035/princeton-said-facebook-will-lose-80-of-users-fb-debunks-them-in-5-crushing-graphs

    So David Clark did not just annoy more than 50% of New Zealander’s. They’re apparently turning away from Facebook anyway ( 🙂 ):

    “Researchers from Princeton University made some pretty dramatic claims about Facebook earlier this week, releasing a report that used a statistical model to claim that the social media giant will lose 80% of its active userbase between 2015 and 2017.”

    However, by adopting an adapted form of the methodology “Facebook concludes that by 2018, Princeton’s enrollment will have halved, and by 2021, it will have no students at all. It will be a ghostly shell of its former past, with its empty halls stalked by the ghastly phantasms of legacies and sons of senators past.”

    I do hope that Princeton is correct, but only for David’s sake.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: