If National wins ...

[Baa_Baa]

So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive.

Very insightful, you are almost certainly correct. Fortunately National saw the opportunity prior to election, to ramp up the low-rate pay scales, put in place an inflationary cycle that will benefit all beleaguered wage earners, including middle income earners, and set the course for economic growth.

This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.

I very much doubt that. As you will have seen, the government has much deeper pockets than they let on. One disaster after other disaster and the government miraculously steps in with the handouts. Bill will almost certainly have a fighting fund stashed away that will be used to deliver the promises of higher earnings and lower taxes.

Bill is not stupid, far from it. He can't and won't promise largess and not deliver in an election year. The poor Labour voter will be torn between the austerity policies (rhetoric) of the Labour party, or riding the pigs back. What a conundrum.

[elZorro]

Very insightful, you are almost certainly correct. Fortunately National saw the opportunity prior to election, to ramp up the low-rate pay scales, put in place an inflationary cycle that will benefit all beleaguered wage earners, including middle income earners, and set the course for economic growth.

I very much doubt that. As you will have seen, the government has much deeper pockets than they let on. One disaster after other disaster and the government miraculously steps in with the handouts. Bill will almost certainly have a fighting fund stashed away that will be used to deliver the promises of higher earnings and lower taxes.

Bill is not stupid, far from it. He can't and won't promise largess and not deliver in an election year. The poor Labour voter will be torn between the austerity policies (rhetoric) of the Labour party, or riding the pigs back. What a conundrum.

I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.

There is another option for voters, they could vote for Labour, and watch the economy grow for real, just like it did last time they were in.

[fungus pudding]

I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.

There is another option for voters, they could vote for Labour, and watch the economy grow for real, just like it did last time they were in.

I admire your sense of humour eZ.

[dobby41]

I just reported someone else's research, but I'd have bet money that it wasn't National's original idea to do the right thing.

Certainly wasn't - they wanted control rather than let the courts make policy.
They have been back footing this sort of thing since forever really. They certainly didn't want to noise during the election if it wasn't resolved.
Now watch the others get their fairer deal on the back of this.

[blobbles]

Friends of mine (a couple) went to listen to Little and Ardern here in Nelson last week. They are both left voters and wanted to see Labour's new leadership team. They came away very much underwhelmed. They said Little did not come across confidently and got into silly arguments with some attendees that questioned what he was saying rather than ignoring them or confidently making his argument. Ardern, they're words were " unimpressive". They are going to listen to the Greens next week. Desperately searching for somewhere to put their vote but don't see Labour worthy of it with this Leader. With reports like that, not so sure about your claim EZ that National is on the way out. Winston may well still prefer English over a Little/Shaw combination

I was in the same boat, likely looking at the TOP party now (dislike the tepid Labour/Green Alliance). I look at TOP policies and haven't found a single thing I disagree with. In a world that seems to be governed more and more by populists, why don't we get a party in who is interested in governing by FACTS. TOP tend to use evidence based reasoning, not political leaning to make their policies - something I can't agree more on.

I also agree the election cycle is shocking - 3 years means: 1 year of trying to fulfil your election year bribes, 1 year of actual governing, 1 year of preparing election year bribes...

[Brovendell]

Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.

[dobby41]

I also agree the election cycle is shocking - 3 years means: 1 year of trying to fulfil your election year bribes, 1 year of actual governing, 1 year of preparing election year bribes...

Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.

Both views are valid unfortunately.
Doesn't help to be able to make real change and get it settled in before the next election.
Of course the change may be a bad thing hence Muldoons comment about damage.

[fungus pudding]

Rob Muldoon was always happy with a three year election cycle. He reasoned that if you were any good you would get another term. If you were hopeless you would be tossed out before you could do too much damage.

A four year term looks terrifying to a large number of Americans.

[Brovendell]

63 million people voted for Donald Trump

[BlackPeter]

63 million people voted for Donald Trump

True - and 66 odd million voted against him. And there is as well the silent majority of 190 million Americans who did not vote at all (some because they are not allowed to and others because they did not bother). What about all these 256 million people who did not vote for Trump? Poor bastards.