Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?

[Quasievil]

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?

Big question that one lots of reasons, will think about it mate

[Lou Girardin]

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?

That's dead right, but we were the darlings of the world economists. We were so brave in our reforms. We were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific. But no-one else followed.
Then 1987 happened.
Why is New Zealand so extremist?
Is it because we're so apathetic that we elect a Government then fall asleep for 3 years?

[Oscar]

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

Depends on your point of view.
I'd say a balanced summary would say that the Lange Govt. reformed the economy but lacked the will to take on social welfare and the unions.
Ruth Richardson finished what Douglas started.

[Keystone19]

Depends on your point of view.
I'd say a balanced summary would say that the Lange Govt. reformed the economy but lacked the will to take on social welfare and the unions.
Ruth Richardson finished what Douglas started.

Possibly, that's the trouble with a three year term though. Governments do not have time to enact all their policies. Under MMP we should have a four year term.

[Oscar]

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.

I'm sorry to inform you that yer getting interest increases whoever wins the election.

[MikeL]

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.

And I can't let your comment pass. The original opinion was that Helen Clark had done more for the majority of the people in this country...
You automatically assume that the only benefit is economic and then deny Labour the credit for even that. There is more to government than economics (the dismal science). However much some of you people view Labour's social policies with distaste, the fact is that no national government has dared to provide leadership in social issues the way Labour has. You may think they have gone too far, but the fact remains that they have at least had principles rather than cynical pragmatism.

[Oscar]

Possibly, that's the trouble with a three year term though. Governments do not have time to enact all their policies. Under MMP we should have a four year term.

The second Labour Govt. had two terms. It was not a matter of time, it was a matter of guts. Whereas the Lange Govt. had no problem reforming financial markets, farming and the state sector, they would not touch social welfare and unions.

[Keystone19]

The second Labour Govt. had two terms. It was not a matter of time, it was a matter of guts. Whereas the Lange Govt. had no problem reforming financial markets, farming and the state sector, they would not touch social welfare and unions.

Well they couldn't do everything then could they. This time around they have completely reworked the health system and, damn it, it's working.

[Oscar]

And I can't let your comment pass. The original opinion was that Helen Clark had done more for the majority of the people in this country...
You automatically assume that the only benefit is economic and then deny Labour the credit for even that. There is more to government than economics (the dismal science). However much some of you people view Labour's social policies with distate, the fact is that no national government has dared to provide leadership in social issues the way Labour has. You may think they have gone too far, but the fact remains that they have at least had principles rather than cynical pragmatism.

Bullshit. Ruth Richardson provided leadership in the area of social policy - she started to disassemble the social welfare monster that was strangling so many aspects of this country.

Actually, I would love to hear what the labour govt did to benefit the economy over the last six years. Please tell us.

[Hitcher]

Possibly, that's the trouble with a three year term though. Governments do not have time to enact all their policies. Under MMP we should have a four year term.

Piss off. MMP is a political system designed to play both ends off against the other, whatever those ends may be. It was designed to stop the Nazis being re-elected in Germany after WWII and, on that score at least, has been spectacularly successful. As proportional representation systems go, it is fundamentally flawed and can lead to perverse outcomes. The STV system, as now used for local government elections and in other states around the world, is much "fairer".

MMP can result in a process where coalitions or other accommodations have to be forged after election night to produce a government. An outcome of this can be manifestos and party election promises being torched and a policy agenda introduced for which nobody voted. Hardly democratic. Three years of such putridity is too much without getting all misty-eyed and proposing four years.

Personally I am attracted to a "to-the-victor-the-spoils" system. At least it generally provides a result with a mandate to govern.

[Keystone19]

The STV system, as now used for local government elections and in other states around the world, is much "fairer".

Actually I agree. STV would be a much fairer system and it's a shame people didn't understand it wnough at the time of the referendum. MMP would work better with a four year term though and this most recent government has actually made it work pretty well.

[MSTRS:Me]

Piss off. MMP is a political system designed to play both ends off against the other, whatever those ends may be.

Personally I am attracted to a "to-the-victor-the-spoils" system. At least it generally provides a result with a mandate to govern.

See post #52

[Oscar]

Explain why you think next election is more important

Because the economy is about to tank.
Whoever is at the wheel will get the blame.

[The Stranger:Me]

You seem to come back to the DPB all the time.
Take off your DPB blinkers and red sunglasses for a moment.

Do you have any evidence to back up the 500 to 1 assertion?
I strongly feel that this is the main difference between our points of view.

I do care about others and am prepared to put my money where my mouth is.
Although we did try and get some assistance from the govt to help out when we had kids living here which for example their parent had tried unsuccessfully to get them adopted out, but were unable to as they were too old and no one would take them. The hoops we would have had to jump through were huge. So as to avoid stress on the kids and/or parents we simply paid up and shut up.

So you are obviously compassionate, and I believe that I am compassionate. So what is the difference between us?

Why are we passionately opposed to each other's point of view when we want the same thing?

Do you want to support people who's career is to live from govt hand outs and for whom this is the only way they know how?

Do you accept that they exist?

Well they do, I have seen it on more than one occasion.
We have had people go back on the dole rather than dig footings by hand. It was good enough for the 57yr old MD to do it, he would never ask someone to do something he wouldn't, But too hard for a young guy to do. Actually went through 3 young apparently fit able guys in 2 weeks before hiring a 45yr old whom stuck it out. Hey the dole is much easier. The old guy had one advantage, he had been taught/learned how to work hard, the young guys had not, who was there to teach them this valuable lesson?

This is an example of the type of dependency cycle I would like to see broken.
I do not want to smash down support for those unable to take care of themselves for whatever reason that be.

[Lias]

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

Whats next.. The Freedom to have sex with an animal? the freedom to have sex with children? The freedom to murder who you want? the freedom to rape who you want? The freedom to steal what I want?

Civilizations always have a basic set of moral values that their legal systems are based on. What labour has been doing is steadily trying to errode what have been basic tennets of our moral values in the name of "personal freedom. By changing the legal system, they hope that with the general apathy of most voters, these changes will eventually sink back into the moral fibre of the country.

Now to sum up with a funny before I go postal and kill all the labour supporters:

A teenage girl was about to finish her first year of university. She considered herself to be a very liberal Labour supporter, and her father was a rather staunch National supporter..
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to programs like welfare.
He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 90% pass rate, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless because of all the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many university friends because of all her studying.
He then asked how her friend Mary, who was attending the same university, was doing.
She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 50% pass rate, never studied, was very popular on campus, went to parties all the time and often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
The father then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Chancellor's office and ask to take 20% off her 90% and give it to her friend that had only 50%. That way they would both have a 70% pass rate.
The daughter fired back and said "that wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and my friend has done nothing."
The father smiled and said: "Welcome to the National Party."