If National wins ...

[Major von Tempsky]

I think EZ you have fallen into this trap before - confusing calendar years with financial years. e.g. if we are talking about 2009 it is no good quoting the 2009 financial year ending March 31 2009 as being "2009". This why you went off the rails earlier in discussing Cullen's stewardship in terms of gov't deficit. You also need to be careful which gov't deficit you pick as there are about half a dozen alternatives.

[elZorro]

I think EZ you have fallen into this trap before - confusing calendar years with financial years. e.g. if we are talking about 2009 it is no good quoting the 2009 financial year ending March 31 2009 as being "2009". This why you went off the rails earlier in discussing Cullen's stewardship in terms of gov't deficit. You also need to be careful which gov't deficit you pick as there are about half a dozen alternatives.

Yes, very good MVT, except I don't think you could find any normal metrics that show up the three-term Labour stint as having poor results. The NZ govt budget expressed as a percentage of GDP makes specific mention that it shows the snapshot in December of each year. So that chart at least, is based on a calendar year. I'm not sure what month the govt closes off its books.

[777]

I'm not sure what month the govt closes off it books.

End of June.

[westerly]

As you have gone quite elzorro and have not come through with your promised propaganda it might be a good time to post the graph you so hated to see - again. And that would be: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/k...rrent_account/
I know you so hate seeing that as it is so damming for Labour. I look forward to you explaining this with facts and not fiction that you said you would - & with graphs to boot you said. Maybe you are busy producing something, if that is the case I will be requiring you to back up anything you post with facts like I have. The best things are simple really - that's if you can back it up. Simple facts - I'm loving it. Maybe something from nz statistics like I did. Yeah, I know, that would be too much to ask from you. Your probs. not mine :-D

But they have borrowed $50 billion since 2010. Something National supporters don,t mention.

westerly

[elZorro]

I've tried to find this borrowing figure Westerly, it's a bit elusive. They are happy to quote it as a percentage of GDP. That chart is below. As GDP rises, the borrowed figure doesn't look so bad. But it's still there, need to be paid off. Note that in just 5 years, about 9 years of Labour paying it back has been cancelled out. Most recent summary shows $60 billion debt held by govt. One year's total income. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicat.../media/08nov13

Heaps more charts, in particular towards the end note the clamp on wages that National helped out with. It's quite striking.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/...arts-mar13.pdf

[craic]

Any truth in the rumour that, with the next Labour Government, one of our frigates is to be renamed Greenpeace 1 ?

[BIRMANBOY]

if Labour get in you'd be lucky to get a dinghy.

Any truth in the rumour that, with the next Labour Government, one of our frigates is to be renamed Greenpeace 1 ?

[elZorro]

if Labour get in you'd be lucky to get a dinghy.

Water jokes are in today.

[iceman]

if Labour get in you'd be lucky to get a dinghy.

Wind and solar powered and funded by money hot of the printing press !

[blackcap]

If the business case stands up to rigorous scrutiny, then why not?

A somewhat different proposition to what started this thread - i.e. National's business case for selling assets did NOT, and still does not, stand up to rigorous scrutiny!

Statements like that do nothing to help your argument Belg. I can also state "Labour and Greens case for renewable sustainable energy did NOT, and still does not, stand up to rigorous scrutiny!

But I am stating nothing, offering nothing and no one is the wiser.