Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?

**Hitcher** · 15th September 2005, 18:01

I suspect that the Nats may get a bit of a fright on Saturday night. Next election is the one to win, not this one. I think they may have done too much...

**Oscar** · 15th September 2005, 18:04

Originally Posted by Keystone19

Helen Clark has achieved more for the majority of people in this country in the last six years then the national party has ever achieved.

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

**Quasievil** · 15th September 2005, 18:15

Originally Posted by Oscar

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

That is very correct, well said

**enigma51** · 15th September 2005, 18:29

Originally Posted by Hitcher

I suspect that the Nats may get a bit of a fright on Saturday night. Next election is the one to win, not this one. I think they may have done too much...

Explain why you think next election is more important

**Keystone19** · 15th September 2005, 18:35

Originally Posted by Oscar

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

Please note that the National government cannot take any credit for those reforms. It was the Labour government under Lange who instigated them.

**Big Dave** · 15th September 2005, 18:36

Hmmm - election, that's with the crosses on the boxes isn't it. - who is the current Govt again - is Helen 'Nat' or 'Lab'? (serious - it's not on sky sport or UK TV)

(Lucky you don't have a 'Country Party' like they do back home - the abbreviation is a killer)

**Quasievil** · 15th September 2005, 18:49

Originally Posted by Keystone19

Please note that the National government cannot take any credit for those reforms. It was the Labour government under Lange who instigated them.

Under direct pressure from Rodger Douglas who formed the ACT party which is right wing like National. Labour cannot take the credit it was right wing political ideals that did it

**MacD** · 15th September 2005, 19:20

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Under direct pressure from Rodger Douglas who formed the ACT party which is right wing like National. Labour cannot take the credit it was right wing political ideals that did it

It was nothing to do with Roger Douglas. NZ was essentially bankrupt and our government was under instructions from the World Bank / IMF. The alternative was to follow the Argentinian path and default on our loans.

While 80% of tax payers are claimed get a tax break under National, 50% of full-time earners will get $15 per week or less*. That will be very quickly soaked up by the interest rate increases that will result from the inflationary effects of the tax breaks.

If Brash was still Govenor of the Reserve Bank he'd be squealing like a stuck pig about National's plans.

My prediction is that National will win and then use NZ First as the fall-guy for why they can't actually fulfil their election promises.

*source

**Quasievil** · 15th September 2005, 19:25

Originally Posted by MacD

It was nothing to do with Roger Douglas. NZ was essentially bankrupt and our government was under instructions from the World Bank / IMF. The alternative was to follow the Argentinian path and default on our loans.

While 80% of tax payers will get a tax break under National, 50% of tax payers will get about $10 per week. That will be very quickly soaked up by the interest rate increases that will result from the inflationary effects of the tax breaks.

If Brash was still Govenor of the Reserve Bank he'd be squealing like a stuck pig about National's plans.

My prediction is that National will win and then use NZ First as the fall-guy for why they can't actually fulfil their election promises.

Excuse me ? new zealands economic reforms had everything to do with Rodger Douglas, have you heard of rodgernomics where do you think that came from ?

**MacD** · 15th September 2005, 19:45

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Excuse me ? new zealands economic reforms had everything to do with Rodger Douglas, have you heard of rodgernomics where do you think that came from ?

Roger Douglas was the Finance Minister at the time of a severe financial crisis. That is not the same as saying the reforms were his idea. Rogernomics was a term coined by the media to personify an economic theory (Monetarism) as applied to NZ. Douglas was following a process of reform as mandated by the IMF. The NZ Labour Party had little choice but to follow this path given the country's financial state following the Muldoon years.

**Quasievil** · 15th September 2005, 20:34

Originally Posted by MacD

Roger Douglas was the Finance Minister at the time of a severe financial crisis. That is not the same as saying the reforms were his idea. Rogernomics was a term coined by the media to personify an economic theory (Monetarism) as applied to NZ. Douglas was following a process of reform as mandated by the IMF. The NZ Labour Party had little choice but to follow this path given the country's financial state following the Muldoon years.

Yes thats right he lead the economic reforms and was voted Best Financal minister by euro money magazine for his efforts. Alot of the ideas were written about in his 1980 "there has got to be a better way"
So when I say he lead the way, I believe that largley he did. He was an economic revolutionary which certainly aided NZ towards the reforms of the 1980's particulary 1984-1980 period

**Hitcher** · 15th September 2005, 20:40

Originally Posted by enigma51

Explain why you think next election is more important

Economic indicators are starting to trend the wrong way. The next three years will be hard work for whichever party wins this Saturday. By comparison, the winner in 2008 will ride the crest of a wave.

**Mr Skid** · 15th September 2005, 20:59

Originally Posted by Quasievil

I prefer freedom of choice and to make decisions myself

Like the freedom of having a handly neighbourhood brothel? Or the freedom to marry a person of the same gender?

Sounds good - Labour, supporting the individuals right to choice

If you want to vote for a right wing party that supports freedom of choice, don't piss about with National. They're probably the most socially conservative party, bar Destiny New Zealand.

I'd suggest there guys:

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

At least they've got a consistent political ideology underpinning their policies.

**MacD** · 15th September 2005, 21:43

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Yes thats right he lead the economic reforms and was voted Best Financal minister by euro money magazine for his efforts. Alot of the ideas were written about in his 1980 "there has got to be a better way"
So when I say he lead the way, I believe that largley he did. He was an economic revolutionary which certainly aided NZ towards the reforms of the 1980's particulary 1984-1980 period

And I believe he was following the economic orthodoxy (of the time) in a particularly unquestioning way. If NZ's approach was so revolutionary why was the outcome less successful than the more "conservative" economic approach taken by Australia during the same period?