If National wins ...

[Major von Tempsky]

Well said Iceman and Slimwin. Nicky Hager proved counterproductive during the election and will prove counterproductive now!

Below is the reason why Labour and EZ and his mates keep losing....


Last updated 12:43, March 6 2015



Credit rating agency Moody's Investors Service has reaffirmed New Zealand's Aaa sovereign credit rating with a stable outlook.

Finance Minister Bill English said the decision, noting the strength of the economy and improving government finances, was a "further endorsement of the Government's responsible economic and fiscal programme".

Moody's said the New Zealand economy was growing strongly, despite a steep fall in dairy prices during 2014.

Construction, partly in relation to the rebuilding of Christchurch after the 2011 earthquakes, and also in the Auckland housing market, had been an important contributor to growth.

It tipped growth to be about 3 per cent during 2015 and to remain robust through 2016.

"Compared to similarly rated countries, it says that New Zealand has a track record of faster and more stable growth in recent years," English said..


"In addition, Moody's has assessed New Zealand's fiscal strength as very high.

"This reflects a debt burden that is lower than the median for Aaa-rated countries, along with the prospect of a return to budget surplus."

Moody's report said that when compared to other similarly rated sovereign issuers, New Zealand's economy had demonstrated a track record of faster and more stable growth, which counterbalanced its economic weaknesses, namely the small size, high concentration and relatively low income levels in comparison to other Aaa-rated sovereigns.

Moody's noted the Government was committed to not raising taxes and the plan to run a surplus was based on expenditure restraint.

This would allow spending to fall to below 30 per cent of GDP during the coming four years – down from a peak of 34.6 per cent in 2010-11.

English said: "As Moody's notes, New Zealand's main vulnerability is its external debt and structural current account deficits.

"Both of these indicators have improved somewhat in recent years and the Government is focused on further improvement through its economic programme."


Moody's report also notes this country's biggest vulnerability is the "structural current account deficit, which has been large for several decades. This deficit makes the country highly dependent on international capital markets."

English said New Zealand was one of only 14 countries with the top Aaa rating and a stable outlook with Moody's.


- Stuff

[elZorro]

"In addition, Moody's has assessed New Zealand's fiscal strength as very high.

"This reflects a debt burden that is lower than the median for Aaa-rated countries, along with the prospect of a return to budget surplus."

All of which can be sheeted home to the excellent work by the Labour Government up to 2008. Not the National Government, who have borrowed to cover tax shortfalls, so as not to lose face. They will try desperately to engineer a slim budget surplus in 2015. Labour had record budget surpluses every year of their last terms, National has not managed it once. The current account deficit is roaring back, we are all happy to buy cars and overseas gear, but not to actually build some of our own clever stuff and export it.

Further endorsement of National's bungling of a golden start, that was handed to them on a plate. Six years wasted so far.

[RGR367]

Looks like Labour would bed with Winston Peters who is really a supporter of the Rights' policies.

[elZorro]

Looks like Labour would bed with Winston Peters who is really a supporter of the Rights' policies.

Starting in 2005, Labour lost votes to both the Greens and NZ First. These are voters who don't really vote National, on average. Over the years, it hasn't changed much. Most of the party votes (80%) are split between National, and the other three biggest parties. Changing the vote each election can be done by spending money on advertising and promotion. National figured that out a long time ago, and they have the systems in place to make the most of any sentiment moving their way.

Winston is part funded by the Vela family and the racing industry, no doubt. He certainly had enough funding and planning done to make an immediate impact up North. Labour is off to a painfully slow start, and that could be part intentional, part the fact that they are short on funds. The press are helping to explain to the voters that Labour would probably prefer that Labour votes go to Winston Peters. For a start, it would make for a very interesting term afterwards, and some of National's policy ideas that they'd like to railroad through, might have to be pared back or modified. Good.

[craic]

Anyone out there among the wishful thinkers who believe that Winston Peters will win Northland and who is willing to wager a reasonable sum on that result? I give him a snowballs chance in hell and would like to profit from my wisdom. If he does win, then JK should call an immediate election and, after the inevitable victory should cart him and Peter Dunne off to the tip in the same wheelbarrow.

[elZorro]

Anyone out there among the wishful thinkers who believe that Winston Peters will win Northland and who is willing to wager a reasonable sum on that result? I give him a snowballs chance in hell and would like to profit from my wisdom. If he does win, then JK should call an immediate election and, after the inevitable victory should cart him and Peter Dunne off to the tip in the same wheelbarrow.

You will lose this time Craic, that's what I think. It's only a by-election, what's a reasonable amount?

[slimwin]

A small Japanese car.

[craic]

You will lose this time Craic, that's what I think. It's only a by-election, what's a reasonable amount?

It's not up to me to say but $1,000 would be within my budget. JK is building bridges, WP is blowing hot air.

[Sgt Pepper]

Craic
Ah yes, the bridges. I am intrigued that Mike Sabin never seemed to mention the rebuild programme during his election campaign, which was just five months ago. Any thoughts??

[neopoleII]

as i dont live in the northland region nor even care about its political or social issues.......
i am perplexed how an mp can do something that requires him to give up his seat........ for what ever reason....
and the resulting action is a by election which could/can change a countries elected government.
to extrapolate...... a person could enter politics, join a party, and subvertly do a bad deed to bring down a government.
just because his/her "true" political choice is with another political party..... but instilled themselves to the opposing party
to be a "sleeper" government destroyer.
you would think that if a party won an election they have the right to rule for that term, unless something very serious happens
that the ruling party has done or committed.
but with this sort of stuff....... an mp or several mps from a ruling party could...... have a terminal illness, sudden death, party disdain,
or sabotage, and a government could fall from the actions of a handful of people... whether pre planned or "just lives incidents"

i am a fan of mmp, but this sort of stuff seems politically unstable.

eg...... a 7 Richter scale earthquake at a caucus meeting at some destination that kills 4 or 5 mps and the government falls.
or....... a man made incident that causes the same lose of mps.

is this a fair way to run a country....... with ....... chance or tragedy controlling a government?

just some thoughts.