Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?

[Lou Girardin]

I thought it was clear.
You expect a Government to provide things that a small government can't.
The Louisiana floods are a prime example.
Bush is a proponent of small government, so he cuts funding to projects designed to protect against flooding. The result has been obvious.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.

[Charlie]

I see National having a more 'general' appeal and focus in their policies.
I'm personally sick of all the specialist treatment and I think alot of ordinary kiwis just want a fair system. No insane benefits if you fall into a particular ethnic group, no tax benefits just because you have (and are of age to have) kids, and whats up with medical cards for young and old, do people 25-50 not get sick??????
We all pay a percentage of taxes on what we earn so it doesnt require a rocket scientist to see you pay more if you earn more, so why if your earn above a certain amount you pay more on more???
Although I agree that there needs to be a better system for making it easier to keep at least 1 parent home with young kids; TV and daycare are no replacement for family.

Still nothing like politics and seeing grown men and women act so childishly!

[The Stranger:Me]

Ok, can't let this one slide on by...

No doubt there are some people who choose to remain on the DPB unnecessarily (please note that you do not have to be a mother to be on the DPB, fathers are also users of this form of welfare), however, until the government - national or labour) can come up with decent childcare, decent pay rates for women, and decent after school care for children, then for many people there is no choice but to go on the DPB. And thank God we have it because if we didn't then where would our kids be?

From my reading of quasi's posts he is not advocating stopping these things altogether, only removing them from those that don't require them as opposed to those whom simply find them more convenient. There really is a huge difference.

My eldest daughter used to bring home neighbourhood strays all the time. Sometimes we would have upto 3 extra kids living with us for various periods over several years. That was until the last one, whom it turned out was simply here because his mother could not get more money from the govt because he was too old. He had one 14 yr brother and she didn't work, never had.
But her answer was to get more money from the govt or get rid of her son instead to someone whom "could afford it".
Incidently it took me a lot of work to actually get this guy to understand that he had to get a job or get out, he had spent a lot of time trying to get money to live from the government too.
Quite simply he had never seen anyone work and had no idea that he had to or why he should.

[Charlie]

So yeah, there is a choice.

On t'other hand, I wouldn't want to see women have to go through that Mrs Ixion's great aunt did nowdays. Trouble with any scheme that decent people devise to help those who genuinely deserve help, is that it gets taken over by the leeches. And like as not the people who deserve the help end up missing out anyway.

I like your theory and thinking....

[Ixion]

You are right about one thing at least, national are far too centre-right.

I'm still voting for them however, because the Direct Democrats have a snowballs chance. What NZ really needs is a real right wing party, not the marginally right of centre party that is National.

Things I want to see in my lifetime, but never will under Labour OR National:

Compulsory reacqusition of all former state owned enterprises.
Re-introduction of trade sanctions and subsidies to protect local business.
Strict immigration, only allowing immigrants who speak excellent english, and the elimination of "chain imigration"
Hard labour instead of jailtime ("Prisons" should turn profits, not be a drain on the taxpayer, and anyone who has commited a crime so heinous they are not suitable for a labour scheme should be executed.)
Abolition of defense lawyers.
Strict time limits on welfare benefits (6 months for the dole, better systems in place to ensure mothers on the DPB return to the workforce etc)
Return to full membership of the ANZUS treaty, and increased defense spending to allow us to be a genuine military ally to Australia.
Abolition of the Nuclear ban, and active development of nuclear power in NZ
Replacement of the Treaty of Waitangi with a constitution giving equal rights to all NZ'ers
Relaxtion of firearms laws, and a constitutionally guaranteed right to use lethal force in the defense of property. (No more prosecuting farmers for shooting thieving fuckwits!)
Constitutional right to free speech, ensuring the wording precludes any "Hate Speech" type thought control ever being introduced to law.

Sadly thou we have too many scum sucking lefites in this once-beautiful nation of ours, and I think its far more likely were just going to turn into a cesspool of welfare dependant crims

A fellow traveller Vote COMMUNIST comrade.

[Keystone19]

Closer to today, I know a woman, with kid. She works three jobs, all part time, maybe 60 hours a week all up.Makes less from them after tax and travel expenses than she would get on the DPB. She was on it (DPB) for a while - threw it in , says she didn't 't respect herself .

So yeah, there is a choice.

On t'other hand, I wouldn't want to see women have to go through that Mrs Ixion's great aunt did nowdays. Trouble with any scheme that decent people devise to help those who genuinely deserve help, is that it gets taken over by the leeches. And like as not the people who deserve the help end up missing out anyway.

I think the great thing about the system we currently have is that there is a fall back position. At least with the DPB there is a choice. For example, if your kids need you at home (and many do for a bunch of reasons) you can be there for them. Some of us are lucky and make the life choices that leave us in a position not to ever need the state for assistance, but many do not make the right choices or are unable to. There are a bunch of ways to support these people and benefits are just one of them. Sure, we need to work on some of the other options, but at least there is a commitment from Labour to do that.

[Motu]

National won't be strong again until they have a strong leader,all the National members with guts jumped ship years ago.Like MikeL,I reckon if Brash gets in the knife will slip in easily and he'll be out soon as his promises crumble.

[Wolf]

A fellow traveller Vote COMMUNIST comrade.

Well, Lias did score pretty close to Stalin's position on the political compass...

[Keystone19]

From my reading of quasi's posts he is not advocating stopping these things altogether, only removing them from those that don't require them as opposed to those whom simply find them more convenient. There really is a huge difference.

My eldest daughter used to bring home neighbourhood strays all the time. Sometimes we would have upto 3 extra kids living with us for various periods over several years. That was until the last one, whom it turned out was simply here because his mother could not get more money from the govt because he was too old. He had one 14 yr brother and she didn't work, never had.
But her answer was to get more money from the govt or get rid of her son instead to someone whom "could afford it".
Incidently it took me a lot of work to actually get this guy to understand that he had to get a job or get out, he had spent a lot of time trying to get money to live from the government too.
Quite simply he had never seen anyone work and had no idea that he had to or why he should.

Yeah, there's heaps of examples and we always hear the bad ones. But of all the bad stories, there's another 500 good stories. Bet ya didn't know your neighbour was on the DPB did ya...

[kerryg]

I thought it was clear.
You expect a Government to provide things that a small government can't.
The Louisiana floods are a prime example.
Bush is a proponent of small government, so he cuts funding to projects designed to protect against flooding. The result has been obvious.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.

Absolutely am not promoting/supporting any particular political point of view with this question but does " small government" really mean fewer public servants (eg policemen, firemen, nurses etc etc)? I was under the impression that Brash's intention is to deal with waste in the public sector and that is something different, isn't it? Fewer pen-pushers, not fewer cops?

[Phurrball]

Firstly, this is a blardy interesting election all right - there's a lot riding on it.

It's too close to call IMHO, I think it'll all come down to which minor parties are at the table...

The most disturbing aspect of this election is the uber-spin, dirty tactics and apparent bidding war on ALL sides of the spectrum.

Personally, I think that if national win, and carry out their 'policies' such as abolishing Maori seats and the oh-so-pithy 'one law for all' agenda [Remembering that many of us are here as Tangata Tiriti according to a contract between the crown and Maori] they will be shooting themselves in the foot in the long term as Maori are increasing as a percentage of the population.

On the policy front - does national actually have any precisely worded policy? or is it all vague cr*p able to be summarised in light-on-words Tui style billboards? For example - housing policy = less than 2 pages, communications policy - alleged to be less than 100 words making no mention of local loop unbundling or cellphone termination charges...the nats spokespeople - including the 'big guns' come across appallingly in interviews WRT detail.

I have no real issue with tax cuts - that is a typical right wing economic ideology (which differs from my own), and is merely a different way of doing things at the end of the day. The REAL issue is national's other policy - or lack thereof. How many times have we heard a national spokesperson say when pressed in an interview "We'll review it"? Where is the detail in what the nats will actually do? Or is it all pithy soundbites that will lure swinging voters into signing a blank cheque for an ill-defined agenda?

Labour ain't perfect...but at least they're pretty clear on what they will actually do. All this talk of 'social engineering' and 'PC' gone-over-the-top is mere spin - ask anyone to actually DEFINE what these things ARE, and see them struggle.

I detest this dumbing down into vague soundbites! [can you tell]

I've already voted...as I'm jumping on a plane to the South Island tonight.

Personally, there's a huge amount riding on this for me. My fiancee and I are on the bones of our arse as we try and better ourselves through study.

(yes - we did weasel our way into a cool bike though!)

Who has tried to LIVE on $150 student loan living costs in Auckland? How many right wing politicians could survive themselves on the benefits they plan to cut (and pay market rents)? Now THERE'S a reality show I'd actually watch! It's a bad joke. I do too much part time work and it hurts my studies.

When are we ever going to be able to afford a house? or start a family? I imagine that the politicos would like to be portrayed as encouraging people such as my fiancee and I to stay in the country, contribute to the knowledge economy (whatever that is), pay our taxes and start a family...Like fark any of that will happen for the longest time if a centre right government gets in.

Should there be a centre right government, I would be looking at taking my degrees and expertise elsewhere (and the tax I would pay) to get ahead. I don't want to. I want to stay in this country I call home. I want to buy a house and start a family and ride my bike through our fantastic landscapes. I don't think I'm being greedy - the millstone around my neck is just too large - it's strangling me before I've even started out in life.

Farking barstards that set up the student loan scheme after receiving a free education themselves...[Don't get me wrong - I believe in contributing something, as I do benefit from my years at university. The current system is way out of hand though...]

(Boy! That turned into an emotive rant!)

Much love KBers...

[Edit]Oh yeah - the essential choice we face is between bureaucrats and plutocrats. Do we want to employ people in the state sector to do things? Or do we want expensive consultants paid to do the same? Hmmm...makes one think doesn't it...[/Edit]

[mouldy]

I agree. National will win. Most people won't look beyond the tax cuts. I actually feel a bit sorry for Don Brash. Six or nine months on, when it all turns to custard, who will get the blame? I doubt that by then he will have the political savvy to avoid the knife in the back.

sad but true. But basic maths tell me that if you have to borrow to fund tax cuts it will force up interest rates hence any money Don gives me back the bank will take back off me as my mortgage costs more.

[Charlie]

National won't be strong again until they have a strong leader,all the National members with guts jumped ship years ago.Like MikeL,I reckon if Brash gets in the knife will slip in easily and he'll be out soon as his promises crumble.

No government party is ever going to please everyone. But your right, there are a lot of softies in there; actually softies everywhere. Few of these posts talk about how it once was, and how the issues have changed. Now I'm not that old, but even 15-20 years ago as a kid I noticed people were tougher, and prouder. There wasnt all this Political Correctness, fear of offending someone for saying it how it is or standing up for what you value. People voted for prosperity and economic growth for business, not for which party will hand out the most freebees.
Infact I'm sure I am happy, healthy and stronger today for all the things I put in my mouth as a child that I shouldnt have, all the accidents I had because OSH hadnt stepped in to protect me, and because my parents taught me you make it through the bad times because thats just what you have to do!

[Lou Girardin]

Absolutely am not promoting/supporting any particular political point of view with this question but does " small government" really mean fewer public servants (eg policemen, firemen, nurses etc etc)? I was under the impression that Brash's intention is to deal with waste in the public sector and that is something different, isn't it? Fewer pen-pushers, not fewer cops?

The Libertarian idea is the bare minimum of Government interference.
Of course "bare minmum" and "interference" are open to interpretation.
You've probably guessed that I detest ACT and all they stand for.
Brash is ACT in drag.
Check out some of his speeches, before he joined the Nats.
If the Nats win, the best we can hope for is that Winnie reins in their more extreme policies as he did to Bolgers crew.

[eliot-ness]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.

You've got it spot on there Lou. Muldoon got into power in 1975 with his givaway program. Scrapped the Labour superannuation scheme and handed back all the money paid in. Said the government would always be able to fund it. Then he brought out the employee tax to raise unemployment and hold wages down. Next he started borrowing heavily to fund Nats givaway policies, each year borrowing more to pay back the previous years debts. Interest rates rose to 18%. Unemployment to over 200,000. By the time he was kicked out the country was virtually bankrupt. Douglas and Prebble were the architects of the next Labour governments policies. Easy money for the asset strippers meant hundreds of businesses were taken over and closed down, simply because their assets were worth more short term than their profits were long term. Easy pickings for people who had no interest in manufacturing.
These faceless groups became Jim Bolgers heroes. self made men who had risen to the top on there own initiative. A couple of years later many of the were in jail for fraud. Next came the superannuation fiasco. Enforced saving would be the only way for the future but the national government wouldn't underwrite the insurance companies. Many of them collapsed leaving contributors with nothing. The health system virtually broke down. Not enough money to fund it. Education suffered the same fate. Once again National tried to borrow itself out of trouble.
Now we have Don Brash. "The country can afford tax cuts. Labour has a 7 billion dollar surplus. Lets give it away". What happens after the first year???
Less taxes coming in. interest rates rising. "We can borrow the money" says the intrepid Mr Brash. Of course there is always the Labour super fund which he has already promised to scrap and use the money to repay debt.
Bringing in nuclear ships should help us trade with America, but how much trade did we have before that policy was introduced??
So, we're faced with another term of Labour's policies, which, difficult as they may seem, resulted in a surplus. Or, we can have the short term gravy train promised by National and pay for it later. Hard choice.