She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Clearly the Kiwi's were happy to let that go through to the keeper, and reward her handling of Christchurch, COVID and White Island.

Cherry-picking one policy they said they'd deliver and didn't to try to justify why she shouldn't have been re-elected looks to be grasping at straws. We could do the same for either side of politics in either of our countries as an excuse to say we should vote for the Green's only, or some such rot.

The end of the day result is, it doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all a pack of asreholes and you're only voting for the person who is going to screw you over the least.

The end of the day result is, it doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all a pack of asreholes and you're only voting for the person who is going to screw you over the least.

Agreed.  I have said for many years that the only choice in an Australian election is the mob that looks like the lesser of the evils.

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Clearly the Kiwi's were happy to let that go through to the keeper, and reward her handling of Christchurch, COVID and White Island.

Cherry-picking one policy they said they'd deliver and didn't to try to justify why she shouldn't have been re-elected looks to be grasping at straws. We could do the same for either side of politics in either of our countries as an excuse to say we should vote for the Green's only, or some such rot.

The end of the day result is, it doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all a pack of asreholes and you're only voting for the person who is going to screw you over the least.

Do you really think people care that Politicians lie these days? If they did then Brexit would not have happened and Boris and Trump would not be leaders of two great countries to name two examples. They only care about what side they are on. Case in point, the Orange one in the US can lie, (over 20,000 in his presidency, including the most outrageous of conspiracy theories) manipulate, gin up white supremacist's and have corrupt a$$holes in his cabinet and some are OK with that. Because that git is on their side of politics.

A left of centre Prime Minister who failed on one policy is immediately called a liar. Yep Jacinda deserves criticism over that but really, a liar? This, regardless of her superb handling of Christchurch, COVID and White Island.

Sorry but Ms Ardern is 20 times better than 99% of the Politicians running around on their very best day.


Michael

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

I've often wondered how many votes you'd get if you ran as a candidate and your advertising consisted of: "I've got no idea what I'm doing, I'm probably going to screw you over, but at least I'm being honest about it before you vote for me!"

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

I've often wondered how many votes you'd get if you ran as a candidate and your advertising consisted of: "I've got no idea what I'm doing, I'm probably going to screw you over, but at least I'm being honest about it before you vote for me!"

Clive Palmer ?  you just have to understand he speaks an alternate language, from watching George Costanza "opposites".

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Clearly the Kiwi's were happy to let that go through to the keeper, and reward her handling of Christchurch, COVID and White Island.

Cherry-picking one policy they said they'd deliver and didn't to try to justify why she shouldn't have been re-elected looks to be grasping at straws. We could do the same for either side of politics in either of our countries as an excuse to say we should vote for the Green's only, or some such rot.

The end of the day result is, it doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all a pack of asreholes and you're only voting for the person who is going to screw you over the least.

Do you really think people care that Politicians lie these days? If they did then Brexit would not have happened and Boris and Trump would not be leaders of two great countries to name two examples. They only care about what side they are on. Case in point, the Orange one in the US can lie, (over 20,000 in his presidency, including the most outrageous of conspiracy theories) manipulate, gin up white supremacist's and have corrupt a$$holes in his cabinet and some are OK with that. Because that git is on their side of politics.

A left of centre Prime Minister who failed on one policy is immediately called a liar. Yep Jacinda deserves criticism over that but really, a liar? This, regardless of her superb handling of Christchurch, COVID and White Island.

Sorry but Ms Ardern is 20 times better than 99% of the Politicians running around on their very best day.


Michael

Michael, she quite clearly lied to the people of New Zealand at the last election when she promised 100,000 new social housing projects. End-of-story.

What you're trying to say is that her lies are so much more honest or have more merit than Trump or Johnson's lies - which doesn't make a lick of sense. She promised something that she had absolutely no intention of delivering on... and she didn't.

And that's okay because...?

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

Her promise was enormous, and her total failure to deliver that promise (about 0.3% of the total promised houses were actually built) constitutes a big, fat lie in my book. She lied to the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society about what she was going to do.

But it's okay because she's somehow like-able and people like Michael want to let her off for that reason.

Why are politicians legally allowed to lie (exempt from being civially sued for dishonesty or criminally charged with deception) when speaking in parliament?

Why are politicians legally allowed to lie (exempt from being civially sued for dishonesty or criminally charged with deception) when speaking in parliament?

They're allowed to say almost anything under parliamentary privilege. Inside the House, they can accuse you of rape, murder, money laundering and tax evasion and you can't do a thing about it unless one of them is stupid enough to repeat these accusations outside, at which point you can sue his ears off.

The other thing is that in general terms it's not a crime to lie. Parliamentarians learn to lie at the Declaration of the Poll - it comes with the territory. Provided that you're not falsely accusing anyone, or seeking monetary or other gain, or under oath in court, you can tell whatever whoppers you like. I used to play cricket, and I was also competing in rally cars through the '70's and 80's. I can boast about all of my successes  (real or imaginary) and big note myself all I like and the worst that can happen is that I'll be found out to be lying and I'll look like a total klutz with no credibility. But I won't have broken any law that I'm aware of.

Why are politicians legally allowed to lie (exempt from being civially sued for dishonesty or criminally charged with deception) when speaking in parliament?

Again, I ask the question. Do you honestly believe that all people in 2020 care that Politicians lie? A significant proportion don't.

All that matters is what side of Politics you are on. One poster who I will not mention their name illustrates it beautifully. That person is willing to overlook the weapons grade lies and deception that Trump and Johnson has undertaken, but is willing to call Ardern a complete liar because she did not fulfill one election promise. Yep you can say she lied on that and that alone, and she should be roundly criticised for it. But he will argue black and blue that is an equivalence of the weapons grade bs and deception that Trump and Johnson has trotted out. All because she is from the left.

So when people state that they hate politicians because they lie, I would sit up and listen 10-15 years ago. Now I think a significant swath would not care if the Politician lies, because they are their liar.

Michael

I’m curious what success if any, a person would have by standing for federal parliament on a one policy platform only. That being to establish a federal, retrospective and well funded ICAC. That person having zero interest in becoming a career politician and would leave when/if that goal was achieved.
It may not eliminate the lies, but surely would infinitely improve the quality of candidates and subsequent behaviour.

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

Her promise was enormous, and her total failure to deliver that promise (about 0.3% of the total promised houses were actually built) constitutes a big, fat lie in my book. She lied to the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society about what she was going to do.

But it's okay because she's somehow like-able and people like Michael want to let her off for that reason.

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

The problem would be getting a major party to support your legislation.    
It would work if it was a hung parliament and one side needed your vote to pass some legislation.  You could negotiate a  deal to pass your bit.
If it was a big majority and that side wasn't keen on your idea, then you might as well #*$$ into the wind.

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

Her promise was enormous, and her total failure to deliver that promise (about 0.3% of the total promised houses were actually built) constitutes a big, fat lie in my book. She lied to the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society about what she was going to do.

But it's okay because she's somehow like-able and people like Michael want to let her off for that reason.

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

Strategically done to be a promise that one could drive truck through and not 'technically' break.  Shameless really, like most politicians.

She lied to New Zealand is the bottom line - she didn't even deliver one percent of the promised homes. And they rewarded her by returning her to office with an increased majority.

Can you name one politician of any flavour worldwide who has delivered on 100% of their promises? For that matter any human? It simply isn't possible, unless you make 0 promises...

Her promise was enormous, and her total failure to deliver that promise (about 0.3% of the total promised houses were actually built) constitutes a big, fat lie in my book. She lied to the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society about what she was going to do.

But it's okay because she's somehow like-able and people like Michael want to let her off for that reason.

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

Strategically done to be a promise that one could drive truck through and not 'technically' break.  Shameless really, like most politicians.

Labour did specify the time period. 2028. 10 year project FFS

And yet to some, not delivering 100,000 in the first year 2019 is somehow a lie.

It was based upon private ownership for low income households.
Dubious, but reliant upon private property developers, so not a snowflakes chance.
Back to the drawing board, which the electorate actually understood: yet they still voted for Labour.

I’m curious what success if any, a person would have by standing for federal parliament on a one policy platform only. That being to establish a federal, retrospective and well funded ICAC. That person having zero interest in becoming a career politician and would leave when/if that goal was achieved.
It may not eliminate the lies, but surely would infinitely improve the quality of candidates and subsequent behavior.

Running a govt is like running big business. Not everything you plan to do works out and some things you start at times later show up to be the wrong thing to do, times change etc. As for Lie's, yeah well I think the internet is helping address this over time and lie's are in the eye of the beholder. A lie to one person is not always a lie to another or indeed actually a lie, especially if there are mitigating circumstances.

I'm not a fan of the anti-career politicians haters. It is impossible to go into govt being one policy party, our society is not one solution solves everything. It takes experience to run a company and likewise to run a govt. There is ZERO evidence to support that the politicians like Trump and Campbell Newman who enter politics just prior to the election they win are any better than more career orientated politicians and likely they are worse based on their performance as they don't know how the system works.

The NZ PM failed on her promise to build those houses, likely not one of her better decisions at the time as likely never achievable and probably not required. For those who wish to burn her govt at the stack over this one thing, you have just proven women to be correct, men cannot focus on more than one thing at a time. Also note in NZ its very hard to have a political mandate which means everything is a compromise and not everything you wish for gets through.

I'm not a fan of her politics, but I'm a fan of the way she has run NZ and yes pushing out a baby in year 1 didn't slow her down either.

Its interesting that in her year 12 year book, it was stated for her, "most likely to become PM".

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

Strategically done to be a promise that one could drive truck through and not 'technically' break.  Shameless really, like most politicians.

Labour did specify the time period. 2028. 10 year project FFS

And yet to some, not delivering 100,000 in the first year 2019 is somehow a lie.

It was based upon private ownership for low income households.
Dubious, but reliant upon private property developers, so not a snowflakes chance.
Back to the drawing board, which the electorate actually understood: yet they still voted for Labour.

She admitted herself that it was a dud project - yet like Michael you still want to let her off because you like her. What will it take to make you see that these people are just straight up liars?

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

Strategically done to be a promise that one could drive truck through and not 'technically' break.  Shameless really, like most politicians.

Labour did specify the time period. 2028. 10 year project FFS

And yet to some, not delivering 100,000 in the first year 2019 is somehow a lie.

It was based upon private ownership for low income households.
Dubious, but reliant upon private property developers, so not a snowflakes chance.
Back to the drawing board, which the electorate actually understood: yet they still voted for Labour.

She admitted herself that it was a dud project - yet like Michael you still want to let her off because you like her. What will it take to make you see that these people are just straight up liars?

And yet you defend Trump who does nothing BUT lie most of the time.

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

Strategically done to be a promise that one could drive truck through and not 'technically' break.  Shameless really, like most politicians.

Labour did specify the time period. 2028. 10 year project FFS

And yet to some, not delivering 100,000 in the first year 2019 is somehow a lie.

It was based upon private ownership for low income households.
Dubious, but reliant upon private property developers, so not a snowflakes chance.
Back to the drawing board, which the electorate actually understood: yet they still voted for Labour.

She admitted herself that it was a dud project - yet like Michael you still want to let her off because you like her. What will it take to make you see that these people are just straight up liars?

And yet you defend Trump who does nothing BUT lie most of the time.

What do you mean 'nothing' - he took on China and met Kim at the North Korean border, which was more than Obama did in his entire eight years of office. And if you want to know what he DIDN'T DO - he's the first President since Carter to not start a new foreign war.

Speaking of nothing, Sleepy Joe Biden hasn't campaigned for the last few days, too tired. And today he's sending Barack Obama out to campaign for him. It'll be interesting to have a President who needs nap time in the afternoons, won't it.

She didn't specify the time period for the building project.

Strategically done to be a promise that one could drive truck through and not 'technically' break.  Shameless really, like most politicians.

Labour did specify the time period. 2028. 10 year project FFS

And yet to some, not delivering 100,000 in the first year 2019 is somehow a lie.

It was based upon private ownership for low income households.
Dubious, but reliant upon private property developers, so not a snowflakes chance.
Back to the drawing board, which the electorate actually understood: yet they still voted for Labour.

She admitted herself that it was a dud project - yet like Michael you still want to let her off because you like her. What will it take to make you see that these people are just straight up liars?

And yet you defend Trump who does nothing BUT lie most of the time.

What do you mean 'nothing' - he took on China and met Kim at the North Korean border, which was more than Obama did in his entire eight years of office. And if you want to know what he DIDN'T DO - he's the first President since Carter to not start a new foreign war.

Speaking of nothing, Sleepy Joe Biden hasn't campaigned for the last few days, too tired. And today he's sending Barack Obama out to campaign for him. It'll be interesting to have a President who needs nap time in the afternoons, won't it.

A president who needs to nap in the afternoon, as opposed to the incumbent who really should.

What do you mean 'nothing' - he took on China and met Kim at the North Korean border, which was more than Obama did in his entire eight years of office.

And what did that actually achieve besides a photo of him doing it? Two tenths of stuff all. Was Kim-Jong-Ill a threat to the US? Not in the slightest...Mexican's are a greater threat to America, but where's the wall?

And if you want to know what he DIDN'T DO - he's the first President since Carter to not start a new foreign war.

I will give you that. But he might as well have. Rather than kill 5,000 servicemen and women in aforeign conflict, he's managed to allow more American citizens to die than were lost in the entire Vietnam and Korean campaigns combined - three times over! No matter how you look at that, that'll take some beating! Hell, give him another month or two in office and the US COVID count will exceed their WW2 KIA number!

Personally, I don't care for either of them - if, in 350M American Citizens - they're the best that can be fielded, it's no wonder the Yanks are the way they are....

What do you mean 'nothing' - he took on China and met Kim at the North Korean border, which was more than Obama did in his entire eight years of office.

And what did that actually achieve besides a photo of him doing it? Two tenths of stuff all. Was Kim-Jong-Ill a threat to the US? Not in the slightest...Mexican's are a greater threat to America, but where's the wall?

And if you want to know what he DIDN'T DO - he's the first President since Carter to not start a new foreign war.

I will give you that. But he might as well have. Rather than kill 5,000 servicemen and women in aforeign conflict, he's managed to allow more American citizens to die than were lost in the entire Vietnam and Korean campaigns combined - three times over! No matter how you look at that, that'll take some beating! Hell, give him another month or two in office and the US COVID count will exceed their WW2 KIA number!

Personally, I don't care for either of them - if, in 350M American Citizens - they're the best that can be fielded, it's no wonder the Yanks are the way they are....

How would that outcome have been any different under a Clinton government?

I really don't get the pathological hated of Trump, repeated in perfect detail on this board. Lots of good things have come of the Trump Presidency, not the least of which was the denial of the Presidency to that war-monger Hilary Clinton.

And I'm not a Trump supporter - I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Just because I'm not getting on the mindless bandwagon that condemns him for every little thing I'm supposed to be a supporter. He's not my President, I didn't vote for him.

You people all have really closed minds - you're just sheep.

How would that outcome have been any different under a Clinton government?

I really don't get the pathological hated of Trump, repeated in perfect detail on this board. Lots of good things have come of the Trump Presidency, not the least of which was the denial of the Presidency to that war-monger Hilary Clinton.

And I'm not a Trump supporter - I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Just because I'm not getting on the mindless bandwagon that condemns him for every little thing I'm supposed to be a supporter. He's not my President, I didn't vote for him.

You people all have really closed minds - you're just sheep.

If it were only Trump or Hilliary, I would have chosen Trump too. Like I said elsewhere, you're only picking the who is going to screw you over the least, not who you want to run the country. About the only person I would actually vote for instead of picking the exact same person because I am voting against their opponent, would be Jacinta Ardern.

But that is not the point. The point is that once chosen, you are El Presidente' like it or not. And as Boss Hog you don't get to spout bull$hit at every opportunity, you are a statesman, your countries representative, like it or not. Petty personal attacks on your opponent, on public servants, on journalists simply because you don't like something they have said, is beneath such a role. Then again, look at our politicians! If my kids behaved they way they do in parliament they'd get my boot up their asre, and rightfully so, but they carry on like it's a game.

Hillary may have made different decisions on COVID, she may not have. We'll never know. Donald made the calls and it has cost nearly a quarter-million American's their lives. But I would have voted for Elmer Fudd before I put either of those other two nincompoops on my polling paper in any event!

What do you mean 'nothing' - he took on China and met Kim at the North Korean border, which was more than Obama did in his entire eight years of office.

And what did that actually achieve besides a photo of him doing it? Two tenths of stuff all. Was Kim-Jong-Ill a threat to the US? Not in the slightest...Mexican's are a greater threat to America, but where's the wall?

And if you want to know what he DIDN'T DO - he's the first President since Carter to not start a new foreign war.

I will give you that. But he might as well have. Rather than kill 5,000 servicemen and women in aforeign conflict, he's managed to allow more American citizens to die than were lost in the entire Vietnam and Korean campaigns combined - three times over! No matter how you look at that, that'll take some beating! Hell, give him another month or two in office and the US COVID count will exceed their WW2 KIA number!

Personally, I don't care for either of them - if, in 350M American Citizens - they're the best that can be fielded, it's no wonder the Yanks are the way they are....

How would that outcome have been any different under a Clinton government?

I really don't get the pathological hated of Trump, repeated in perfect detail on this board. Lots of good things have come of the Trump Presidency, not the least of which was the denial of the Presidency to that war-monger Hilary Clinton.

And I'm not a Trump supporter - I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Just because I'm not getting on the mindless bandwagon that condemns him for every little thing I'm supposed to be a supporter. He's not my President, I didn't vote for him.

You people all have really closed minds - you're just sheep.

CDC probably wouldnt have been defunded under her tenure in 2016-2017

You're not a Trump supporter but you're constantly singing his praises over every little thing. You're a closet conservative who doesnt like being called conservative.