election 2008

[erentz]

^^ wondering the same thing.

Not to mention higher government debt to GDP ratio because the government would have had to borrow to fund infrastructure and public services.

If anyone hasn't noticed, such large amounts of debt is not such a good idea right now or perhaps anymore. Although such major govt debt was meant to be done away with with the reforms of the 80s/90s (paid off with asset sales, etc), did it really happen? What's the comparative debt between then and now?

[A Corpse]

Shhhh guys you still don't get the electoral system here.

If it's bad, it's the party in power's fault. That includes earthquakes, nuclear war, acid rain, the ozone hole, the Varroa mite and Shiz Law.

[funnel web]

For the second time in my voting life I see a Labour party leaving the economy in FUBAR.

[Haydos]

You've got two trains of thought between Helen and Cullen, and what Key says he wants to do.

Helen and Cullen are all about social engineering, a population of 45-60k income earners that provide them their revenue and allow them to have huge welfare spending budgets which don't really do anything but stagnate and keep everyone "comfortable"

Key is more about growth. You'll hear him bang on about it in any speech regarding the economy and his tax cuts, he wants to see a population of 60-120k earners with companies turning record profits, producing more revenue for the government which he will feed back in the form of tax cuts to inspire the economy and keep it afloat.

Both ideas can fail, with Key's being more riskier. But, in effect, What Key is trying to do is take a leaf out of Australia's book and boost New Zealand by using borrowing, with the eventual hope that in 10-15 years, the borrowing will pay itself back in terms of sound infrastructure, a good base of earners and a country motivated to be productive.

I like Key's approach more. I don't believe he'll manage it, not in a country that is this fucked over by it's racial issues and lack of professionalism in most of our companies... but at least personally I'll get gains in the form of taxation and hopefully easier operation environments for business purposes.

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by Haydos

... What Key is trying to do is take a leaf out of Australia's book and boost New Zealand by using borrowing, with the eventual hope that in 10-15 years, the borrowing will pay itself back in terms of sound infrastructure, a good base of earners and a country motivated to be productive.

Sounds great . And I'm pretty sure there won't be any dire consequences. Just look around - this model works.

[Haydos]

Borrowing does work, as long as you use it wisely.

Borrowing to buy that brand new 48" tv and paying 20% interest on it? Stupid idea.

Borrowing to buy that business, which in 15 years will be see you earning more than you ever have, completely debt free? Smart idea.

Borrowing has always been one of the ways to increase productivity. Ineffectual borrowing gives it a bad name.

PS, Trying to compare subprime mortgage market to government borrowing to increase spending is priceless, where did you get your education? Otara?

[caffiend]

Well, now that you put it like that, I'm not even going to comment on your "eventual hope" remark. I'm sold!

[Haydos]

Well obviously, you're a selective reader, too retarded to read an entire post. You did see the part where I said his way was riskier and that due to the nature of the "company" he would run, New Zealand, it would probably fail.

Hence "eventual" hope.

But Key has more faith in New Zealand and New Zealanders than I do.

[caffiend]

Am I a selective reader, or are you a selective writer?

Given that your commentary on this topic is about as meaningful as the party soundbites you've paraphrased (itself a fairly impressive feat), I'm going to go with the latter.

Better that I got my education in Otara than you getting yours from Stuff.co.nz and the first 2 paragraphs of a Wikipedia article.

[Haydos]

lolz, Yes. All of my knowledge is found within Wiki and Google - which is then so quickly translated into my own language to ensure you can't find which google link I've used to get my information from.

I do this all within 2 to 5 minutes and write a post of relatively good length too.

[Draco T Bastard]

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/wp-con...eremover21.jpg

[erentz]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Borrowing does work, as long as you use it wisely.

Yeah but come on, do you trust any government of any colour to use it wisely? No it'll be borrowing to build the waterview tunnel, or some other silly multi billion dollar road for someones electorate. Or borrowing to fund tax cuts so that people can completely not notice the extra 10 dollars a week go out the door on half a block of cheese.

Anyway in australia they don't speak well of the massive debt that they were put in by the labour govts. They do however speak generally very well of the massive $20b surplus they have right now, and appreciate it given the current economic climate. (And we've spent our surpluses, granted on some needed things like new hospitals and schools that were long neglected during the 90s.) You also can't be selective and say, ooh massive debt that burdened the country in the 80s, now Australia is ticking along nicely, obvious correlation. No hardly. We had massive debt in the 80s too.

Now we appear to be forgetting history here.

[erentz]

Historical overseas debt data: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/e.../download.html

Official Govt debt percent of GDP:

1993 = 31.0%
2008 = 10.0%

Total overseas debt (Govt + Corporate):

1993 = 90.1%
2008 = 126.1%

[doppelgänger of someone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The deficit is obviously coming, given that the economy is in the shitter since the beginning of the year. Labour, in its infinite wisdom as a 'fiscally responsible government', decide that they should keep spending but also have a tax cut, thus adding to the deficit. Tax dollars are doled out like Labour's own political capital to buy votes with little regard for the whole country.

At least National is consistent (also nuts though) in supporting tax cuts. What does Labour get by betraying their principles? A few more middle class votes?

[Haydos]

This is where you and I differ, you see history as being the overall history of how each party has performed, rather than the current members of each party.

The only history I see as being relevant in this election is the history of the current players in the Labour government. Why? Because we have not just nine years of history, more like fifteen to twenty years where their front bench has seen very minor changes, making them even more out of touch with the business environment of New Zealand.

Not that they were ever in touch, most of them are ex teachers and academics.

We've seen how badly they've performed over the last nine years as witnessed by the slide down ease of living we've experienced under their (apparently left wing) structure. We've seen their socialistic agenda time and time again in my view, a bunch of people who are just so old and pompous that they need to go.

In National, you have a relatively fresh front bench, lead by a guy who was a world leader in his business environment, backed up by lawyers, large scale farm managers and a series of other professions.

They're not Muldoon and Co, They're not Bolger and Co. They're Key and Co, with a marked change from 1999 to 2008, unlike the Labour government.

I don't trust any of them to do that good of a job, the only good thing is if Labour are ousted, it's Goodbye to the Clark and Cullen era and hopefully they can get back to serving the people they apparently represent.

On the other hand, if Key is successful in what he wants to do, he'll envigorate New Zealand business and ultimately provide more revenue without taxation to the government. If he's capable of doing that, then you'll see a better New Zealand - one more relative to Australia.

[doppelgänger of someone]

To me National right now is the lesser of two evils. National is the evil that I DON'T KNOW, John Key being the major one (though the Nats frontbench has been around for a while, Bill English certainly has). Labour is the evil that I know only too well (not in the GT evil sense, more like incompetent in so many areas). I am willing to give National a chance. It is time for Labour to sit in the naughty corner and think things through.

[PjKiwi]

Voting labour because I don't want some lunatic christians trying to run the country

[Haydos]

You'd rather lunatic lesbian communists?

And not of the hot porno variety...

[PjKiwi]

Yes. At the moment I am currently being forced to engage in cunnilingus with a butch girl at gun point and all my private property has been monopolised by the state. I am posting from a public library computer

[BloodDonor]

key just said on the radio about revised tax cuts ..."obviously wed like to have a bigger package..."

[erentz]

Originally Posted by Haydos

This is where you and I differ, you see history as being the overall history of how each party has performed, rather than the current members of each party.

If that was directed at me, then no, I'm talking regardless of party or colour. I'm talking across the parties and the attitude of voters. This idea of debt funding you love, and the idea of tax cuts that National started at the last election in an attempt to buy its way in. And the idea that surplusses are evil and mean the govt is hoarding taxpayers money rather than being fiscally prudent. Its seriously foolish.

Labour probably should've stuck to their guns and said "no, we won't do tax cuts", lost the election, watched National make a mess through the next 3 years (though hopefully the sun really will shine out keys ass as you believe), then come back into power.

Not that they were ever in touch, most of them are ex teachers and academics.

Do you really think Key is in touch with most people when he is sitting in his million dollar vacation condo in Maui? But its not quite about being in touch with people in NZ yet. Should be about whether the policy is good. As soon as you become a politician (in any party) you're going to get out of touch anyway, your job ends up being to work ridiculous hours pandering to a bunch of special interest groups.

We've seen how badly they've performed over the last nine years as witnessed by the slide down ease of living we've experienced under their (apparently left wing) structure.

You're living standards have gone down? Everyone I know has gone up. Especially a lot of families who struggled through the 90s.

In National, you have a relatively fresh front bench, lead by a guy who was a world leader in his business environment

You're kidding me? Since you obviously can't find facts for yourself (and I'm begining to think you're some students AI troll bot gone awry):

* There are only 2 new faces in the top twenty this election.
* Only 1 of the top 10 is not from the 90s or before
* The top 10 (excluding Key) have an avg start in parliament of 1993.4, and remember these guys typically get involved in politics before that too, they just aren't MPs yet.
* (Also a surprising amount of useless Arts degrees, academic, and public servant types for National.)

National voters who have bought this line, as you have, about some fresh new party need to look at the facts. It isn't. It's the same people.

Rank, Name - Year first became MP - Former profession

2, Bill English - 1990 - Bach Commerce, Bach Arts English, Farmer, then Public Servant in WLG
3, Gerry Brownlee - 1996 - Teacher
4, Simon Power - 1999 - Bach. Arts in Politics & Law then lawyer
5, Nick Smith - 1990 - Academic/PhD, no work history
6, Tony Ryall - 1990 - no work history
7, Judith Collins - 2002 - Lawyer
8, Maurice Williamson - 1987 - Mainframe developer
9, David Carter - 1994 - established New Zealand's first commercial cattle embryo transplant company
10, Anne Tolley - 1999 - Deputy Mayor of Napier and a City Councillor
11, Murray McCully - 1987 - Public relations
12, Lockwood Smith - 1984 - Dairy Board marketroid
13, Wayne Mapp - 1996 - Academic/PhD, Professor at AKL Uni
14, Christopher Finlayson - Never - BA in Latin + French, plus Law, then Lawyer
15, Tim Groser - 2005 - Public Servant (Treasury, MFAT, PM's Advisory Group)
16, Nathan Guy - 2005 - Farmer/Horowhenua District Councillor
17, Lindsay Tisch - 1999 - Farmer, appraiser, Director of Land Corporation Ltd
18, Pansy Wong - 1996 - accounting, then Regional Councillor
19, John Carter - 1987 - Public Servant (Hokianga County Council, Hokianga Community Health Committee)
20, Phil Heatley - Never - Volunteered for international relief then engineer for NZ Dairy Board subsidiary

[chubby]

^^ applause.

[Haydos]

Cast the same brush over Labour, then re-read what I said.

"The Front Bench"

If we're looking at Labour's history, most of them start in the 70s and 80s.

If we're looking at their Front Bench - how long was Helen in the top 20 before being party leader?

"Relatively" - not "Absolutely" new. Compared to Labour, someone who was first elected in 1993.4 is a newbie.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by erentz

12, Lockwood Smith - 1984 - Dairy Board marketroid

Heavens to marketroid! Exit, stage left!

[erentz]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Cast the same brush over Labour, then re-read what I said.

Ok, since you wont.

If we're looking at Labour's history, most of them start in the 70s and 80s.

70s, none, 80s, same as National.

If we're looking at their Front Bench - how long was Helen in the top 20 before being party leader?

Don't have figures for that, why don't you share some facts for once, since you imply you know all this.

One of things I'd respect more about the left overs from the 80s in Labour is that they have been there the longest, and have risen up to the top spots and done a good job, and will then move on. They aren't personalities put in that spot to win an election. They aren't stuck in odd spots because they were so terrible during the 90s, yet they won't get rid of them.

For the record, you're full of it. The numbers are fairly equal (see below).

I'm not disputing that Labour has a lot of old types also, but you're changing the goal posts now. Your original sentiment (and shared by many others) was National was new and fresh, and therefore better than Labour. In fact no, they aren't. But National hasn't changed since the 90s when it was in power. The people on its list now, e.g. Lockwood Smith, Bill English, all had posts in Govt during the 90s.

There is not much favour for the National Govt of the 90s, yet so many of those people are still there, and they'll be governing you for a second time. That is far from fresh.

In the interests of "fair and balanced" reporting (and to give you more facts because you are so lacking):

NATIONAL top 20

* Never been an MP = 2
* From this decade = 4
* From the nineties = 11
* From the eighties = 4

LABOUR top 20

* Never been an MP = 2
* From this decade = 5
* From the nineties = 9
* From the eighties = 4

Clearly it is about time for Helen Clark and possible Michael Cullen to move on. And I'd expect win or lose this election it'll be their last. Phil Goff by all accounts is quite a good foreign affairs person and worth keeping onboard.

1, Helen Clark - 1981
2, Michael Cullen - 1981
3, Phil Goff - 1981 - Freezing worker and cleaner, Academic, union organiser
4, Annette King - 1984 - Dental nurse
5, Parekura Horomia - 1999 - Manual labourer, then printer in the newspaper industry, then public servant
6, Pete Hodgson - 1990 - Veterinarian and teacher
7, Chris Carter - 1993 - Teacher and farmer
8, David Cunliffe - 1999 - Diplomat, then business consultant
9, Maryan Street - 2005 - Director at Auckland University
10, Nanaia Mahuta - 1996 - no work history
11, Winnie Laban - 2002 - Family therapist, community development worker
12, Rajen Prasad - Never - Public servant (the Race Relations Conciliator, on the Residence Review Board, and the Chief Families Commissioner)
13, Ruth Dyson - 1993 - Career politician?
14, Trevor Mallard - 1993 - Teacher
15, Lianne Dalziel - 1990 - Legal
16, Shane Jones - 2005 - Public Servant (Fisheries Comission, MoE, Dept. of PM and Cabinet)
17, David Parker - 2002 - Litigation partner in law firm
18, Clayton Cosgrove - 1999 - Public relations
19, Darren Hughes - 2002 - no work history
20, Jacinda Ardern - Never - no work history

[Ab]

Originally Posted by CCS

Heavens to marketroid! Exit, stage left!

Gold.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by CCS

Heavens to marketroid! Exit, stage left!

Needs to go into a certain database for stuff that is randomly selected for the front page.

[Draco T Bastard]

Gah, wrong thread

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by erentz

NATIONAL top 20

* Never been an MP = 2
* From this decade = 4
* From the nineties = 11
* From the eighties = 4

ZOMG National's cheating! They have 21 MP's in their top 20!!! Scandalous!

[erentz]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

ZOMG National's cheating! They have 21 MP's in their top 20!!! Scandalous!

Knew there was something slimey bout them, this proves it.

[ChaosWulf]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4719479a28435.html National reins in tax cuts.
"High-income earners will cop the fallout from global financial turmoil when National unveils a trimmed package of tax cuts today."

This should be interesting.

[Haydos]

I notice you didn't bother doing an average for Labour? My guess is they're near a full term older than their National counterparts in the Top 10.

I notice also that you tag "From the 80s" equally - where as in my view, 1987 is a hell of a lot younger than 1981.

And lastly, I notice in your attempt at attacking my point, you only proved to serve it right - look at the Top 4 in Labour. 1981, 1981, 1981, 1984. Academic, Academic, Academic and a Nurse. A freaking Nurse? That's some brainpower there.

I also just love how you've left out John Key from National's list, you know - to make it seem all that better for you.

Look at the Top 4 in National, 2002, 1990, 1996, 1999. Power Trader, Large Scale Farm Manager, Teacher, Lawyer.

Would it be fair to say that the top 4 in each parties ranks represent the "majority" say in Party matters? I tend to think it would be.

So in Labour, you've got people nearing their third decade as politicians, each of whom have been self serving members of their little group (Goff, Cullen and Clark) since before most of the people posting here were born. Each of whom have not had real careers (if you consider teaching a real career, I scoff at you) outside government.

Top 4 in National, you've got three relative newbies in Key, Brownlee and Power - two of whom have served in high power careers. And English, who was seen as "the brightest politician in the country" not so long ago and a key advocate of farming issues.

Yes, they're completely the same in terms of their top ranks, if you like playing ball with facts and not spelling out the proper truth, just a semantic version to attempt to attack the initial withstanding point.

[Haydos]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4719479a28435.html National reins in tax cuts.
"High-income earners will cop the fallout from global financial turmoil when National unveils a trimmed package of tax cuts today."

This should be interesting.

I'm thinking 0-40k get around $25 a week. 40-60k get around $45 a week and 60-100k get around $65 a week.

By playing it down and stating that "Due to Cullen and his nefarious spending, we've had to lower our expectations for what we can afford to give our top bracket of income earners" - he's buying votes from the mid income earners because he's justifying that in the face of economic meltdown, he has made some concessions from his position - while still delivering a tax cut package to all, including top income earners which is a hell of a lot better than what Labour currently deliver.

[ChaosWulf]

Uh-huh. So no one is thinking "man, glad Cullen held onto his "rainy day fund" cos if he'd given us all tax cuts when we were whining like little bitches about it, we'd be totally fucked now", hmm.

Depends which version of the spin you're listening to. Still, will be interesting to see what Key is planning.

[Haydos]

Nah, because had Cullen given us tax cuts rather than use the money for stupid spending on things such as an inefficient train line that he paid 1000% more than the valued worth was, the economy would in all likelyhood be stronger due to more money in the pocket after mortgages and food/etc have all been paid for.

There should have been tax cuts in 2005. I do like how magically, the 5.6 or 6.5, whichever it was, billion dollar surplus they were gloating about has magically disappeared and now remains a $520 million dollar spending budget for the next government.

[ChaosWulf]

Hah, that money went to pay for the motorcade speeding fines.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Each of whom have not had real careers (if you consider teaching a real career, I scoff at you) outside government.

Oh, I see, you're one of the fuckwits that thinks only working in the private sector has any validity. Well, for government, the only career path that has any validity is working in the public sector. Working for the private sector isn't even remotely viable as all of the priorities are different.

[Haydos]

Please, advise me how teaching gives you any of the skills required to manage government portfolios or understand policy or correctly analyse information and make effective decisions.

If you can do that, I'll believe teaching is a good grounding profession with which to start from. If not? Like I said, teaching isn't a real profession.

[Solvent]

Draco, I don't think you've thought that through particularly well.

Of course there is valuable experience to be transferred from working in the private sector to working in government.

Anyone taking a balanced position would accept that there is valuable knowledge and experience to be brought into government through working in the private sector, just as there is valuable knowledge and experience gained from working within the public service.

Ideally experience in both the public and private sector should be represented in government. I can't see how an exclusive preference for one or the other could be argued.

[Haydos]

And National deliver a tax cut package that looks something more like an old style Labour government would deliver. Only thing I dislike is their financial rebate to those that don't get financial entitlements through the current government environment.

But all in all, as good as could be expected with news on the financial budget and good direction with Kiwisaver in my view.