I think John Banks, and before him Don Brash, have been the death of ACT, I think they are past reviving. Banks is a total hypocrite and moron and liar and unable to connect with reality.
I have in the past, at times split my vote between National and ACT but I think ACT is now hopeless even though they currently have a better MP.
But then, I voted for Labour several times earlier in my life but people like Norm Kirk have disappeared from their leadership (in retrospect he had the ability to be all things to all people, left, centre and right if you just look up the appropriate Norm Kirk quotes. Lange didn't have a clue about economics and I think his foreign policy and nuclear policy were crazy. I thought Helen Clark had an inferior intellect, pol sci grad? can't stop laughing! She was a caretaker manager who preserved some of what Roger Douglas achieved but didn't have any new policy of her own.
MVT, Lange put us on the world radar with that anti-nuclear policy. Helen Clark was no caretaker. There is no smoking inside pubs and public places, interest free student loans, etc. She stayed in for 9 years, and the whole time our economy improved. John Key - he's a caretaker for sure, and under him and Bill English, we have gone backwards a lot of the last 6 years.
Do you know anything about ruminants MVT? I suspect not. They are relatively inefficient at converting feedstocks to meat and milk etc (compared to fish), but some animals are a lot better than others within a species, and they will also perform better with the right feed and health. These situations also generally reduce emissions. Nappies are not required, and in any case the belches are where most of the gases come from. It's all about capturing emissions in the soil and plants, and reducing the inefficiencies in the animals. There are numerous ways of doing this, some quite practical. John Key surely knows this by now, but is lying in the media about why farmers get to emit all they like from their farms, with no repercussions.
Can anyone understand Olly Newland? On Q&A the other day I wasn't sure how any of what he was saying matched with his book of a few years ago, when he warned people to get out of the property market. I suspect he's simply timing his buying and selling. Like a sharemarket punter, but on a big scale.
Helen Clark was a good leader? So was Mussolini! Just in the wrong direction that's all. 9 wasted years, during which she wasted a good deal of what Roger Douglas achieved. By the time she and Cullen went out the Budget surplus had become a deficit! And don't quote me the wrong fiscal year again, EZ, remember the overlap, the fiscal year doesn't coincide with the calendar/election year.
Helen Clark was a good leader? So was Mussolini! Just in the wrong direction that's all. 9 wasted years, during which she wasted a good deal of what Roger Douglas achieved. By the time she and Cullen went out the Budget surplus had become a deficit! And don't quote me the wrong fiscal year again, EZ, remember the overlap, the fiscal year doesn't coincide with the calendar/election year.
So, by mid 2009, the previous fiscal year ended up in deficit? National was in power for most of it. They'll have to take the rap for it then.
I see Bill English has had to admit he hasn't a dog's show of making the govt books balance by the end of this next fiscal year as promised - now it's possibly going to be by the end of 2016. How many broken promises is that, I wonder? Isn't that budget surplus all they were hanging their economic management on?
Gosh, he's a dagg, isn't he, Bill English..such a personality.
If this was an exam result, National gets a D. Or should that be 'Not Achieved'?
Here is a chart for the govt budget surplus or deficit as a portion of GDP, since 1972. Over that 42 year period, the best looking surplus was achieved recently, while Labour were in charge. National had performed OK, but less convincingly, in the period before that. But the worst results as far as this period is concerned, are sheeted home to the current National government.
While I agree that there have been times when the unions and/or Labour and/or the Greens pursued very worthwhile political goals and objectives (and yes, there is clearly a justification for the existence of each of these organisations) ... boy must it be frustrating to be part of one of these clubs ...
Definitely more fun to be either centre right - or liberal and knowing that nobody than yourself is responsible for improving your lot
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
While I agree that there have been times when the unions and/or Labour and/or the Greens pursued very worthwhile political goals and objectives (and yes, there is clearly a justification for the existence of each of these organisations) ... boy must it be frustrating to be part of one of these clubs ...
Definitely more fun to be either centre right - or liberal and knowing that nobody than yourself is responsible for improving your lot
I would like to be able to provide a reasoned reply to your post BP, but the above link will only work for those with enough spare cash and right-wing bent, to subscribe to NBR.
From your point of view, it might be a simple matter to improve your lot through your own efforts, but I'm sure part of those efforts initially involved a good education probably through tertiary level, not being on the poverty line during your upbringing, and having suitable work available when you need it. Those are all big advantages.
Many of those in the Labour party have at least an interest in ensuring these favourable conditions apply to nearly everyone in NZ. If that is an important outcome, then Labour's policies make a lot of sense.
If that concept is less important than adding advantage to those already well off, then National's polices have worked as designed.
Originally Posted by Major von Tempsky
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks