Black Monday

[mike2020]

Those fringe parties should be banned. Seeing Brian on a billboard leads me to despair for humanity. I mean somewhere out there are real people who think that it's actually worth the gas and time to go and place that vote AND think it makes a difference. It's like Evel Knievel attempting to jump the cook straight on an E scooter. I mean save us all the expense.

[justakiwi]

I almost added that to my post, but chickened out

Those fringe parties should be banned. Seeing Brian on a billboard leads me to despair for humanity. I mean somewhere out there are real people who think that it's actually worth the gas and time to go and place that vote AND think it makes a difference. It's like Evel Knievel attempting to jump the cook straight on an E scooter. I mean save us all the expense.

[Poet]

· Productivity Accelerator – like US post WW11 late 1940s – 1950s.

Interesting that they give the example of after WW11, so lots of rebuilding after the war e.g. Japan and Germany financed by the US government - the Marshall plan.

And lots of domestic spending with the GI Bill of Rights which provided returning servicemen with funds for education, government backing on loans, unemployment allowances, and job-finding assistance. It also provided returning soldiers with 52 weeks of unemployment insurance, money for post-secondary education and job training, and government-backed, low-cost mortgages and loans to start a business or farm.
The GI Bill helped millions of veterans readjust to civilian life, and by 1956, the education-and-training portion had disbursed $14.5 billion to veterans.

So, the productivity boost came from the aftermath of a war and it was driven by government spending.

You might argue that the Marshall Plan money was an important driver of economic growth post WWII and I wouldn't dispute that it was certainly a factor. It is interesting to note though the little known fact that the UK received more than twice as much funding under the Marshall Plan as Germany did ($3.4B UK compared with $1.4B Germany) and to note what each of those countries managed to achieve with that funding. Germany by-and-large built capital assets to drive economic prosperity, the UK created a pervasive welfare state. which was the right decision could form the basis of many arguments, but it is undoubtable which of the economies is stronger and more resilient now.

[bull....]

china getting ready to ban iphones ? , instructed govt depts to not bring them to work

[mike2020]

china getting ready to ban iphones ? , instructed govt depts to not bring them to work

That will cause havoc, the Chinese say no phone no life.

[dln]

I agree. As others have said, this election will come down to people voting for the best of a bad bunch, simply to ensure a change of government. Which is not how it is supposed to work. Something needs to change with NZ politics. I have no idea what or how, but we can't go on with this rinse and repeat system. Every time a party wins an election and goes about changing everything the previous government did - it costs the country money. It is inefficient from an economics point of view, and achieves little.

Labour will lose this election, but I can guarantee you, at some point the people will become disillusioned with the Nat/Act coalition, and Labour will find themselves back in the driver's seat. This is how it has always been, and it will always be this way. Maybe we need to encourage new blood into politics, to ensure we have an upcoming pool of political candidates who actually have vision, the ability to think outside the square, and the balls to do things differently. The current fringe parties are a total waste of time (and probably money) - none of them are grounded in reality. They are nothing more than a distraction.

At the risk of getting slaughtered, maybe it is even time to consider a completely different system. A federal government - with separate governance for North and South Islands? Similar to how Australia does it.

The problem is the adversarial mindset of the (effectively) two party system that is a hangover from the FPP system, where each side automatically opposes anything from the "other side", regardless of it's merits.
Hopefully as MMP matures, we'll get a more diverse range of parties, collaborating on different policies.
It seems that the two major parties are both bleeding support into other 'minor' parties, opening up (potentially) more coalition options.
For example, if the greens could decouple their environmental policies from their socialist agenda, there would be much more opportunity to enact some good environmental policy is n conjunction with any of the other parties - collaborative rather than adversarial .
I'd also like to see the 5% threshold lowered a bit, a level of 1 seat equivalent would be good.

[SPC]

It's not a case of the Greens needing to decouple their socialist policies from their environmental policies to make them palatable to a wider audience, that will never happen. It's up to other parties to embrace environmental principles within their own. And supporters and funders have to hound them to change. Then the Greens would presumably loose a chunk of their appeal.
Of course the Greens believe only they can legitimately hold the environmental franchise. Other parties are free to offer similar or better policies if the wish, it's up to them. And it's time they did.
And one seat parties are a waste of time, they get nothing done and waste parliamentary and taxpayer resources.

[dln]

And one seat parties are a waste of time, they get nothing done and waste parliamentary and taxpayer resources.

David Seymour would disagree with you

[Baa_Baa]

David Seymour would disagree with you

This might be better on the political threads, but that's a strange comment considering ACT have 10 seats in parliament and are on track for 17 seats in the next parliament based on current polling.

What did you mean by your comment that Seymour would disagree that "one seat parties are a waste of time"? Are you referring to times past maybe?

[ronaldson]

This might be better on the political threads, but that's a strange comment considering ACT have 10 seats in parliament and are on track for 17 seats in the next parliament based on current polling.

What did you mean by your comment that Seymour would disagree that "one seat parties are a waste of time"? Are you referring to times past maybe?

Of course he is. And apart from raising ACT from one seat to (currently) ten he caused the End of Life Choice Act to pass.

Peter Dunne was a very effective one seat wonder too!