-
02-04-2016, 10:16 PM
#9941
Looks like you might have consumed a bit too much of your own potion.
Here's a hint, don't drink and post. '-)
Originally Posted by craic
Daytr, I will cut down another sixty-year-old pine next week and cut enough firewood to provide you with enough of the black stuff (carbon) to paint the Right black and you can have all the fun digging up the unimportant rubbish right through to the next election where the populace will demonstrate to you that they are interested in the metal not the dross and will probably elect a right wing government for record term. A gentleman by the name of Mr Mudhoo rode his horse to victory in the last race at Riccarton today and caused my to arise and refill my Glass with Kentucky Bourbon to celebrate but that was the last so it's out to the shed to make another gallon or so.
Hopefully you find my posts helpful, but in no way should they be construed as advice. Make your own decision.
-
03-04-2016, 09:29 AM
#9942
Originally Posted by elZorro
Thanks Daytr, of interest is that to help fund the tax cuts to the wealthier voters, and keep things going, this National Govt has had to borrow $164mill on average, every week since they took office in late 2008. Now they're still borrowing to pay the interest, and the tax take is about to go for a big dive, unless they can keep immigration and house prices up. There's not much else working for this 'rock-star' economy. As someone noted in a comment on your post link, if everyone figures out what they've done, National will lose the next election and they'll never return to office again.
I spoke with Andrew Little this evening, he gave our group a short spiel, with no stumbling at all. Everything seems to be on track.
Oh dear. That new-found anti-spluttering seems to have been temporary and returned full steam for q and a this morning.
And James Shaw who claims to understand business would chuck money at kiwibank to help Aucklanders buy houses. The effect of that nonsense is of course to make houses dearer still. National assured of at least one more term even if Winston First has to be given some fancy sounding portfolio with associated baubles to coalesce.
-
03-04-2016, 09:43 AM
#9943
FP, I notice that you have referenced Winston Peters on a number of occasions recently in regards National being able to secure a fourth term.
You obviously see Peters as a real threat to National's re-election chances.
In my view the biggest possible threat is if Labour switch to a leader who inspires.
Hopefully you find my posts helpful, but in no way should they be construed as advice. Make your own decision.
-
03-04-2016, 10:14 AM
#9944
Originally Posted by Daytr
FP, I notice that you have referenced Winston Peters on a number of occasions recently in regards National being able to secure a fourth term.
You obviously see Peters as a real threat to National's re-election chances.
In my view the biggest possible threat is if Labour switch to a leader who inspires.
That would certainly improve their chances. Obviously Little is not P.M material - but what's your point?
-
03-04-2016, 10:25 AM
#9945
Originally Posted by Daytr
FP, I notice that you have referenced Winston Peters on a number of occasions recently in regards National being able to secure a fourth term.
You obviously see Peters as a real threat to National's re-election chances.
In my view the biggest possible threat is if Labour switch to a leader who inspires.
A reminder. You CANNOT make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Not even the sackful that Labour have.
Last edited by craic; 03-04-2016 at 07:23 PM.
-
03-04-2016, 07:35 PM
#9946
My point is, if I was a National supporter, I wouldn't be protesting too much re Little.
In fact I would be keeping very quiet, hoping he does stay leader to the election. (I realise that's very difficult for the zealots on here)
As I say the biggest threat is that they dump him for someone much better.
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
That would certainly improve their chances. Obviously Little is not P.M material - but what's your point?
Hopefully you find my posts helpful, but in no way should they be construed as advice. Make your own decision.
-
03-04-2016, 08:20 PM
#9947
Originally Posted by Daytr
My point is, if I was a National supporter, I wouldn't be protesting too much re Little.
In fact I would be keeping very quiet, hoping he does stay leader to the election. (I realise that's very difficult for the zealots on here)
As I say the biggest threat is that they dump him for someone much better.
My vote is always cast against the party I think will do the most harm. With every new Labour leader we seem to get a new bunch of policies, so who knows - maybe I'll vote Labour again one day. I'm quite sure Labour will not be in a position to form the next government, but that doesn't mean I want to see National sleep-walk to victory. Yes, they probably will need Peters, a complete toss-pot but a few baubles in his direction will do the trick. To sum that up - I don't really care which party wins, but I very much care what the policies are. In my life time Muldoon's National were probably the worst govt. and 1984 to 1990 Labour were the best.
-
03-04-2016, 10:30 PM
#9948
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
My vote is always cast against the party I think will do the most harm. With every new Labour leader we seem to get a new bunch of policies, so who knows - maybe I'll vote Labour again one day. I'm quite sure Labour will not be in a position to form the next government, but that doesn't mean I want to see National sleep-walk to victory. Yes, they probably will need Peters, a complete toss-pot but a few baubles in his direction will do the trick. To sum that up - I don't really care which party wins, but I very much care what the policies are. In my life time Muldoon's National were probably the worst govt. and 1984 to 1990 Labour were the best.
Andrew Little can get some more media training, at least he doesn't have a hidden agenda like John Key. I think it's amusing that you have to admit that Labour had to tidy up after a disastrous National term in office, FP. They'll have to do that again soon, only this time it won't be with the help of a handbook compiled by Treasury boffins after they researched neo-liberal think-tank ideas in Chicago.
I was on one of the "National Roads of Significance" today, the disguised think-big project that rewards the large construction firms around NZ. A cop pulled over a driver in front of us who had been passing dangerously at the end of a multi-lane area. These big wide roads all end up back at thin sections sooner or later, and as the Easter traffic showed, they haven't solved much yet.
How stupid will these highways look, if we all have to trim back on fossil fuels and find more efficient transport, or not make so many trips because the fuel is too expensive or too dangerous with ongoing climate change? National will look like dinosaurs then.
NZ is not alone, we'll all need governments that have some ability to look ahead and deliver policies that will help people cope with future events and technologies. Labour and the Greens, along with NZ First, could form a very useful coalition, and their policies have a lot in common already.
What's National's policy? Get in power, borrow $164mill a week using taxpayer credit, and bluff your way through using the media. It worked for over seven years. It shouldn't last for over nine years though.
Last edited by elZorro; 03-04-2016 at 10:47 PM.
-
03-04-2016, 11:34 PM
#9949
"What's National's policy? Get in power, borrow $164mill a week using taxpayer credit, and bluff your way through using the media. It worked for over seven years. It shouldn't last for over nine years though."
A more useful way of looking at the government debt is as a percentage to GDP. Makes for a more rational discussion, don't you think?
Useful to put in the a graph from the UK as well, puts the last eight years into perspective. i think I remember something about an earthquake as well...
ukgs_chartDp12t.pngnew-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png
-
04-04-2016, 07:11 AM
#9950
Agree snapper, however comparing it to a bad performance in the UK to make National look good doesn't put it in perspective.
Perhaps comparing Labour's performance to National's is a better comparison. The difference is stark in comparison .
Apologies to those who saw this the first time around.
http://thestandard.org.nz/who-was-th...k-or-john-key/
Originally Posted by Snapper
"What's National's policy? Get in power, borrow $164mill a week using taxpayer credit, and bluff your way through using the media. It worked for over seven years. It shouldn't last for over nine years though."
A more useful way of looking at the government debt is as a percentage to GDP. Makes for a more rational discussion, don't you think?
Useful to put in the a graph from the UK as well, puts the last eight years into perspective. i think I remember something about an earthquake as well...
ukgs_chartDp12t.pngnew-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png
Last edited by Daytr; 04-04-2016 at 08:04 AM.
Hopefully you find my posts helpful, but in no way should they be construed as advice. Make your own decision.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks