By Chris Trotter*
Guyon Espiner and Andrea Vance kept casting glances towards Ruth Richardson, much as they would towards a batty old aunt. Indisputably, there was something deeply eccentric about Richardson’s performance on Saturday’s Newshub Nation. But, there was also something scary.
Like the Bourbons (the French royal family restored to power following the defeat of Napoleonic France) Richardson appears to have “learned nothing, and forgotten nothing”. Hearing her speak about the New Zealand economy, and what is needed to restore it to health, it was as though the three decades that have slipped by since her brief tenure as Finance Minister were empty of incident. As if all the deterioration in the quality of New Zealanders’ lives and the slow decay of their nation’s institutions – much of it attributable to Richardson’s policies – could be made to disappear by a furious waving of hands.
Richardson is exactly the same person, ideologically, that she was in 1991, when her vicious “Mother of all Budgets” left beneficiary families in tears, and the charities dedicated to their support starved of resources. The same, pint-sized true believer: fizzing with ideological certainty; ready to inflict pain and hardship upon half a nation for its own good – and for the even better of the other half.
That the passage of so many years has not dimmed the fanatical brightness in Richardson’s eyes is only marginally less frightening than the fact that she sits on the Act Party’s Board-of-Directors.
That Ruth Richardson just might have the ear of Act Party Leader, David Seymour, was reportedly enough for a number of the National Party’s biggest friends and donors to take a deep breath and pour hundreds-of-thousands of dollars into the coffers of NZ First. Their argument was straightforward. National could not afford to be driven into the same dangerous territory as Jim Bolger. Winston Peters had applied the handbrake whenever Jacinda Ardern’s government threatened to leave the road – best to have him there if Christopher Luxon’s looked like doing the same.
After all, the only thing that had saved Jim Bolger’s government, following three years of “Ruthanasia”, was the First-Past-The-Post electoral system. The disastrous electoral impact of Richardson’s policies may be measured in the precipitate fall in the National Party’s share of the popular vote. From 48% in 1990 to just 35% in 1993. Had MMP been in place for the 1993 general election, Labour and the Alliance, with a combined Party Vote of 52% could easily have taken power. Bolger would have presided over National’s first one-term government.
If Seymour was permitted to exert the same economic and social policy influence over Luxon’s government as Richardson exerted over Bolger’s, then a Labour-Green government in 2026 would be odds-on favourite. And it wouldn’t be anything like the Labour-Green-NZ First Government of 2017-2020. Assuming that the pollsters are correct, and that Chris Hipkins’ government is soundly defeated on Saturday, then a pretty ruthless scouring of the Labour Party is unavoidable. What a National-Act government (unrestrained by Peters’ handbrake) is likely to face in 2026 will be as close to a “coalition of communists” as New Zealand has ever seen.
For a few days, over the course of the past fortnight, it appeared that the moderate faction of the National Party had prevailed over its hard-liners. Luxon made it clear to the voting public that while his preference was for a “clean” two-party coalition with the Act Party, if its preference was otherwise, then he would pick up the phone and call Winston. Almost overnight, NZ First’s numbers improved by a whole percentage point – lifting it to a projected 6% of the Party Vote. With NZ First securing that level of support, a National-Act-NZ First government became a dead certainty. The Right was poised to re-take the Treasury Benches.
Or … not. Between Luxon’s confirmation of a week ago that, if required, a three-party coalition, including NZ First, was possible; and National Campaign Manager Chris Bishop’s panicky Sunday predictions of deadlocked negotiations, hung parliaments, and the possibility (probability?) of a second election; something very serious had gone very wrong. Somewhere in National’s caucus, party, or party-donors’ ranks (and, quite possibly, in all three simultaneously) a split has opened up between those who favour simply a change of government, and those who, echoing Act’s election slogan, favour “real change” – Richardsonian change.
Having witnessed the NZ First “surge”, from 5% to 6%, these “Real-Changers” were clearly terrified that Act’s recent slump in support, from 15% to 10%, was not going to stop, and that Luxon might well emerge from Saturday night’s count with a Party Vote between 34% and 36%, followed by Act and NZ First with 8% apiece. For the Real-Changers, an Act Party with no more support than NZ First could produce only a lazy, do-nothing, National Government – something on the model of John Key’s. Unacceptable, was their judgement. Act won’t wear it. Seymour would rather face a new election than spend the next three years as National’s and NZ First’s geeky younger sibling. If Chris Bishop wasn’t prepared to tell the public, then Act and the Real-Changers would.
Hence Bishop’s panicky statement regarding fruitless negotiations, hung parliaments and a second election. Clearly, he and his fellow strategists are attempting to spook Peters’ more recent converts into returning to National and Act. Their argument is brutally simple: back a National-Act government – without Peters – or face months of crippling political and economic instability by keeping him in the mix. That’s the voters’ choice: a clean two-party coalition, or a dirty three-way.
Will it work? Is Peters’ recent support susceptible to such threats? Are they Real-Changers, too, or are they after a different sort of change? Not Richardson’s economic rationalism, but Peters’ economic nationalism? And if it’s the latter, then asking them to embrace Ruth and kiss Winston good-bye, may not work. It just seems logical that if a right-wing voter was looking for the real change that Seymour is offering, then he or she would already be safely tucked-up with Act.
Then there’s the Left’s lost and lonely. Driven away from both Labour and the Greens by the latter’s’ support for restricting freedom of expression, re-writing the Treaty, and encouraging transgenderism. These unreconstructed lefties are looking to NZ First for shelter from the wokesters’ storm. Ex-Labour-Alliance-Green voters are not going to oblige Bishop by backing a National-Act government – no way.
Peters, Himself, has described Bishops’ statement as “scaremongering”:
“These very concerning comments must be an unfortunate misunderstanding because suggesting the National Party would start scaremongering and threatening to ignore the will of the people on Election Day and ignore the need of our country to form a stable government would be highly troubling to voters. It is telling voters National would instead enforce another costly election on the nation purely because of their own political expediency.”
Which is a classically orotund Winstonian way of saying that such behaviour, far from persuading opponents of Labour and the Greens to run towards the National and Act parties, is much more likely to drive them into the arms of NZ First.
Very good news indeed for sly Uncle Winston, but not at all what eccentric Aunt Ruth was hoping to hear.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
159 Comments
Funny that both National and NZ First are bad mouthing each other, while being aware that they may have to come together to keep Labour away for the next 3 years. In the last week before the Election, such discord and scare mongering about another election could drive the undecided voters towards Labour. That would be a great disaster for National.
I am principally voting Act because Seymour has undertaken to insist on democratic openness on co-governance - and now he's acting like a petulant child at the prospect of having to co-ordinate with Peters - who is the only other politician with the honesty to call out this chicanery. I feel like standing them both in the corner until they agree to 'play nice'
As National should be they clearly have no skills at reading the room over the last ten years.
Their real down fall came with their cynical con job of a tax package and wanting to start the housing Ponzi up again.
This well may lose them the election on Saturday.
Once again young Kiwis if you want to own your own home you need to vote left.
And thank goodness for that. What more one-sided mischief making can our media put into this election. They have been superbly successful in sowing unjustified doubt regarding the credibility of a center-right coalition simply by twisting any statement that National, sometimes injudiciously, may have made.
For me the bottom line is that for reasons entirely centered around law and order, health, education, housing, and cost of living, this government just has to go. If that doesn't happen next Saturday, then given the escalating trend of criminal behaviour we have developed in this country under Labour, combined with the inability of the police to deal with it, I will for the first time in my advanced life get a firearms licence and buy a gun for self protection. Never thought I would see NZ come to this!
It is just amazing that this Labour government has hardly had to fight this election on the basis of their track record in government. What a free ride they have had during this campaign.
It seems that technicalities regarding the opposition's proposed fiscal policies (and surely it is a no-brainer that if inflation has been high then tax thresholds should be adjusted in step to account for this) or the doubted viability of a yet to be determined coalition arrangement actually seem to count far more than what we have been subjected to over the last three years. Surely, any change has to be better than continuing down the path we are on.
Our health system is in an absolute mess yet Labour have hardly had to front up with a "please explain" on this during the election. If they have answers to our country's multitude of problems then why, why do we have to wait until their next term in office for them to supposedly deliver these. They won't.
I live in a rural area and over 50 kilometres from the nearest police station. Unfortunately, that isolation hasn't stopped the presence of nefarious looking characters coming up to our home (250 metres off the road) on some strange pretense or other. We never see a police presence out here and some of our neighbours don't even have cell phone coverage. So, what do you do when it appears that incidences of criminal opportunism are on the rise and it may be just a matter of time before you get seriously unlucky?
Yes, I would never be stupid enough to give self-defense as a reason and to be completely truthful, that consideration is only a very minor reason for me to think about gun ownership. I've used plenty of guns but never needed to own one, but our property is now being taken over by wild pigs and the possums think our fruit trees are their private larder (yes, I fence it as best I can). I'm getting tired of asking my neighbour to deal with the possums that I catch in the live capture trap with his .22 (I do this because I prefer to dispatch even pest animals as humanely as possible). The pigs would laugh at a .22 but a .308 is just not for me so they will just have to be an annoying presence unless I get some of the local hunters in.
Yeah, building the most state/social houses of any government since the Second Labour Government is clearly a failure.
And a continuing trend of reducing crime rates under the Key, Ardern and Hipkins governments is another success misrepresented by National and ACT lies.
Exactly why a coalition is needed.
Since labour was given too much power last time they have pretty much ignored what they were voted in to do, and have instead done whatever they wanted. Their first term was better when winston was the handbrake that stopped the nonsense - so on that basis he gets my vote again ... and luxon needs to suck it up and work out that having someone by his side to stop them getting carried away is exactly why we are voting NZF.... and not for nats/act.
Also - I am in favor of a referendum on the treaty (per Act) and referendums on anything else that is important. it is a great idea. Lets let the arguements be made by all and the people decide.
The swiss do referendums all the time on important changes - and they arent bad model to follow. More votes and referendums would sort out the 3 waters policy mistakes far quicker.
I find this election campaign profoundly depressing. A nation crying out for some economic leadership and we are left to choose from this rabble.
If we are really relying on WP as some sort of stabiliser then we need to change our parliamentary structure, perhaps an upper house.
I would also add that although I am not voting for him, Rawiri Waititi was far more eloquent than both Seymour and Peters in the minor parties debate.
The fact that Luxon is leader reveals how shallow National’s options were. Labour with Hipkins were not much different. Given Labour’s disintegration in government National should be winning this election at a canter.mLuxon though is neither sufficiently experienced as a politician nor charismatic enough as a leader. Right or wrong, NZ has identified and favoured strong personalities as strong leaders and on present form Luxon falls well short. That, and a lack of early accurate strategies, is why National are now having to scape and scramble when they should be instead well clear of the field.
I think Luxon is strong. Every media personality has tried to put words in his mouth, but no to their disappointment, he stayed on message.
Also there has been demand for him to say stuff that would then lose lots of voters. Again, despite the pressure, he has not strayed from the message.
If he becomes PM, there will be surprise at how tough he could be.
Why wont they just admit that people will likely lose their jobs with the cuts, and services will likely be affected.
Instead they duck and dive and say it is up to the departments to save costs. Never giving any detail as to how the costs will be saved. They are so scared of the media getting a negative sounding soundbite. So instead they come across as being deceitful. To those of us watching more than the 6pm soundbites anyway. But I guess we are not the majority of the audience.
The same reason the Greens only repeat the second half of the sentence 'Implementing a wealth tax will make New Zealand overall poorer and lower real incomes in aggregate, but it will also make us more equal as a society and lift outcomes for the worst off'... why draw attention to the downside of your policy unnecessarily?
How about we spend it wisely, and if you can't spend it wisely then give it back.
Labour says that government as a percentage of the economy has not grown excessively, however the outputs seem to have fallen.
Chris Hipkins complains about the electoral office not sending out the voting packs, this is just an example of the malaise of government departments, happens when you have a lot of middling managers with no other purpose except to build personal silos, lets not even start on the middling managers at pharmac and there approach, ditto RBNZ, FMA, and Kaianga Ora, lack of leadership whose sole focus is to make life difficult for those they are trying to help to make their life easier. Having dealt with them all (except Pharmac) and not impressed with their abilities, but very impressed with their fortress mentality.
You can expand the tax base whilst reducing the amount you spend, they're two separate issues.
Obviously there has been a huge amount of wasted spending, but the reality is that in the current world economic environment we are having to spend more just to stand still. An aging population is putting increasing pressure on our health infrastructure, our pay as you go superannuation scheme is costing billions more everywhere with no signs of slowing down which puts more pressure on tax revenue. We could cut 10,000 public sector employees and it would save around $1 billion, which in the grand scheme of things doesn't end up being all that much when other costs are going up so dramatically.
Means tested super is just another way to stop people working hard and saving.
Super is funded by workers. The idea to use it to pay just for the beneficiaries retirement is an own goal and kind of like paying and giving houses to beneficiaries who are capable to work.
Its a capitalist world. The deal is to work and reap the rewards.
Yes there are examples such as Oregon state and also Portugal for example, but those reforms were on the basis that the state and for the latter, the country, were already overrun with them and hence a health approach would give greater overall socioeconomic and health benefit. Decriminalisation for lower class drugs is needed as well as a review of the classifications given the recent benefits found with psychedelics and MDMA for the likes of treatment-resistant depression and PTSD.
Give me some context here. I can't pick up where your going with this. (There's not quite enough here for me to say maybe he's just a lot smarter than you)
No I am not sarcastic. Debbie is also very capable, she can put coherent political though into news paper column. Maybe it's because I could not be bothered typing there and my interests align don't align or something you missed it.
An excerpt from the facebook post you linked of Waititi's:
Te Pāti Māori absolutely and unequivocally do not support our involvement in this war!
...
As indigenous people, we should not fight other indigenous peoples on their whenua. We should not be involved in the killing of innocent people. Rather, we should always stand alongside indigenous peoples in their fight for their sovereignty over their own lands.
No, I don't think this was intelligent, either in of itself as a defensible or even coherent position (it's bizarrely self-contradictory - is Ukraine not a sovereign nation in his view?), or a particularly wise move politically.
Never mind that the person in question was not in any way fighting in Ukraine as a result of defence policy, but as a private individual volunteering. Nothing about this made sense or added to the discussion.
What is it with that phrase "sovereign nation", it's almost completely redundant whenever its brought up. It's a signal you have no ability to question anything your told about foreign policy.
He's deliberately vague here because the political class people and you can only handle so much conflicting history. You don't know the events he talks about so can't follow along.
What is it with that phrase "sovereign nation", it's almost completely redundant whenever its brought up. It's a signal you have no ability to question anything your told about foreign policy.
Well Waititi was the one to bring up sovereignty, not me, so at least you've stumbled to the right conclusion!
How about this signal: someone claiming they are vague because people can't "handle" the truth, and that they are aware of alternative events and history, but they can't disclose them.
In the Newshub interview, Guyon gets it so right that National failed to think strategically about other coalition or support partners - and he specifically mentioned TOP. And of course that would be made possible by standing aside the Nat candidate in Ilam. But I wonder whether anyone has done the numbers should Labour be the one to stand aside their candidate (the sitting MP). Not sure where she is on the Labour list, but it could be worth thinking about.
Time has nearly run out though - and lots of folks in the electorate have probably already cast their vote. It's funny how one week out we find ourselves in such uncertain territory.
Kate you are correct -but really the lack of strategic thinking for taking NZ forward has been the big issue from our political parties especially Labour and Nats (and maybe thats a reflection of "the times" as it appears to be a global issue)
It would be nice to have robust debates on policy and solution - agree with them or not. Instead we get personalities, untruths and voting to keep the others out rather than to support policy positions
CT's article is scare mongering really trying to scratch his itch and I think reflects his drift away from socialism to populism rather than reality
My pick is a clean 2-party coalition due to a low turnout of Labour voters.
Always happens when a party has no chance of winning.
This means that as a percentage of the vote, National and ACT are likely to get over 50% of the vote & enough seats to govern alone.
NZ First is likely to get over the 5% threshold as Labour voters vote strategically to try and stop ACT having too much power.
The net result is likely to be Labour winning less than 25% of the vote.
"Tell him he's dreaming".... Winston's votes are not coming at the expense of Labour rather Act and and a bit off National. There is no way in hell that Nat and Act will get over 50%. This scaremongering by Bishop as Trotter has stated will only embolden Winnies supporters.
i know plenty of people that are voting for WP or have voted for WP already, mostly for the older ones to stop the retirement age going up, from the younger generation to stop the opening of our housing market up to overseas buyers.
national have misjudged the protest vote thinking they would get them all but instead people have found someone else that will not only not help get labour out but stop NACT
The angry, splintered protest vote may be the biggest yet. I predict 12% of the votes will be for parties that don't reach the 5% threshold. This was 8% in 2020. 1% in 2020 were spoiled ballots. This will go up to 1.5%
So what you are saying, is that National's policies are so unpopular that their only chance of getting over the line and forming a stable government is that Labour supporters stay at home. It's quite a risk.
That bodes well for the next government then. Not actually be voted in on a mandate based on their policies. It means more kicking the can and not doing anything to address the fundamental challenges NZ is facing.
Such as life then all your two main political parties can deliver is PR and no substance. No wonder why they are both so unpopular this time round.
What a National-Act government (unrestrained by Peters’ handbrake) is likely to face in 2026 will be as close to a “coalition of communists” as New Zealand has ever seen.
Really. Here is a simple definition of Communism:
Communism is a political and economic ideology that positions itself in opposition to liberal democracy and capitalism, advocating instead for a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.
Left yes, but please remember it was Labour that rid NZ of state control of production etc. , which had reached its high under Muldoon.
Nothing odder than NZ's older generations who received debt-free entry to the workforce, affordable housing, and a universal welfare benefit in their dotage all from their preceding and succeeding generations, tut-tutting "communism!" at following generations who've received far less but who they still expect to fund their universal old age benefit.
More lies of omission from Labour
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/ian-mccrae-my-prescription-for-fixi…
The more I think about this election the more i think a lot of of our troubles are caused by the disconnect between only having one vote (ok 2) but govts/parties having to implement multiple policies. IMO that makes it very hard to know exactly what people are voting for/against, so we fumble about and swing from one mash of policies to another.
I've been trying to think of a different way of doing it.
Voting on every policy decison would be obviously extremely time wasting and expensive, but maybe at general elections there should be a separate section for general policy areas (e.g. education, health etc etc) where you can indicate (with a tick, not an essay!) why you are voting for a particular party and can register areas where you disagree with their policies...?
I've been (and judging by comments here others have too) very torn at this election because every party has at least one major issue that makes me not want to vote for them. In the end you just have to hold your nose and vote for the least worst, but because of the system they won't know about you not liking some of their policies (i have emailed one party to let them know issues I have with them).
We need to improve/update our democracy I think
Good thought process. One way to re-think elections, would be to pass a core services (including capital) budget on a bi-partisan basis before the election. That budget then sets the Vote budgets for the following year (as a minimum). Then, in that same budget setting process, a fixed amount is also allocated to new initiatives.
Therefore, all parties in their election manifestos/policies would only have to explain what new initiatives they would spend that money on. That would give us an ability to more easily identify the things we would know to be their priorities.
ACT, for example, would spend its extra money on state sector redundancies and thus lower the core services budget in out years.
Labour would have to budget for the IT/technical services needed to implement its GST off fruit and veg proposal.
And so on.
The swiss system is a good one. More referendums and votes on key topics can only help.
Imagine with big decisions like 3 waters, CGT or keeping borders closed... we could just have a simple and rapid voting process for that specific topic and the govt task is simply to deliver what we want .... with tech it would even be expensive - it would also encourage voters to educate themselves better.
@False economies: It's MMP, so coalitions have to work it out. You know, build agreement.
NZers like dictators in effect, even if they don't realise it. Simplicity. But we gotta learn to work with difference. Differences are not actually a problem like folk are frothing about this week.
normally , I am for referendums, but the current amount of blatant misinformation been peddled , and believed , by a significant portion of the population , makes me think its not a good idea at the moment .
wether the vocal ones bother to vote is another matter,i think the Greens were quite happy for the more vocal radicals move to the fringe parties . they are impossible to please , and end up splitting in fractions as soon as their particular hobby horse is not highlighted.
My biggest concern, and CT encapsulates some of the history, is that both sides of the aisle have presided over the gradual, and sometimes barely perceptible, but cumulative, erosion of living standards in the country for decades now. In this they have been shameless. while I am not a fan of paying people not to work, the clearly favoured plan of making people work for a wage that is simply not livable is tantamount to being a new form of slavery. To this end Labour have swung right, and are trying to camouflage it, National are clearly right but are trying to downplay it. There is simply no real solutions being put on the table. More taxes for any one is not a solution.
National and ACT are acting with the arrogance of a 3rd term government, except it's all falling apart before it has even begun. National were measuring the drapes of the 9th floor weeks ago, it turns out however they forgot to realise that:
1. They need to take a majority of the NZ Public with them (Which is clearly not happening considering they are polling about 10 points less that John Key did on his worst day) and/or
2. You need partners that can be seen to form a stable government. (They are all at war with each other at the moment)
The sheer arrogance of the National campaign is now clear. They have made a monumental strategic cock-up.
The prospect of 1996 happening again is now very high. The question is, will Labour be government ready again by 2026 (or potentially earlier).
Agreed. National is the least-worst option for them. For me, I'm thinking of voting for a labour electorate MP to increase their electorate (and thus reduce their list) representation. I like MPs with skin in the game, which is why I'd prefer a system with no list, just multiple MPs per electorate, chosen through STV.
because in the event that Nat and Act are short and don't want to give all the lollies to Winston -- Labour will roll Hipkins as leader after a terrible election result -- install a new leader -- who has not ruled out working with Winston and hey presto let the negotiations begin! all too obvious really
Labour have been utterly useless so no.
TPM are racist and are going to legalise hard drugs so no.
The greens are racist, have a sexist, racist leader who told us what she really thinks and are going to implement a wealth tax so no.
National is the common sense, least worst option. In 3 years we get to have another think.
Drain the swamp.
Remember - we are in an MMP environment. We do not need to have a coalition. All we need is a party that has enough support for confidence and supply to keep the lights and aircon of government on.
Other than that, everything can legitimately be negotiated on a bill by bill, or issue by issue basis.
I'm comfortable with that because I'm comfortable with having an effective handbrake on government.
Exactly.
in an MMP environment there is no reason why Labour or National must be the saturnian body around which all others orbit.
there is just as much of a chance of a government being formed by Green/NZ1/TPM holding 35 seats together and Labour on the outs with its 32 seats guaranteeing support for annual budgets. NACT and their 53 seats wouldn’t even get a look in.
That G/NZ1/TPM scenario avoids any coalition agreement between Labour and NZ1, and NZ would have no Labour ministers. Labour could give C&S to Green/TPM, and then NZ1 has its own C&S or other agreement with Green/TPM.
There is no reason why such a combination could not be implemented. It is only the limited thinking of how to work constructively in an MMP environment that limits NZers from considering there is more than just having Lab or Nat “in charge”
However, NZ1 cookers in charge of ministries? Winston and Jenny probably the only two with actual brains to manage a ministerial portfolio or two. Then would NZ have two co-prime ministers if Greens were largest of the 3? Or would it be PM Peters as a condition of his support for G/TPM.
the mind boggles.
Ruthanasia destroyed my life in 1991 when I returned to NZ after my UK youth visa ran out, and I will never forgive those responsible.
I came from a well-paid, exciting job in which I had proven myself the equal of my UK peers, to unemployment in Auckland. Door-knocked, chased all leads, prepared to work anywhere in NZ, but nothing. Had to attend a basic course at the equivalent of Winz on how to write a CV etc, even at my level. Those on the course ranged from unemployed factory workers to ex-CEOs. Bewildering times.
The only jobs where I even got an interview were for a cleaner, and a telemarketer. Was rejected for both. Luckily mates in Australia heard of my plight and I got a good job over there.
Yes it was brutal...and a necessary response to Labours election lies about the economy:
"The Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, defended the move on the grounds that he had been badly misled in the run-up to the 1990 election as to the actual state of the New Zealand economy. He was told by officials on Sunday afternoon, the day after the election, of two unrelated financial crises: the country's broke .... and the largest bank .... was bankrupt. Bolger said that his "electoral honeymoon lasted seventeen hours". So he immediately summoned Don McKinnon, Bill Birch and Ruth Richardson to Wellington. The partly state-owned Bank of New Zealand required an immediate injection of capital to avoid insolvency as a result of the poor performance of a NZ$2.8bn loan portfolio in Australia. The bank held 40 per cent of the commercial paper (loans to businesses) in New Zealand.[4]
Secondly; the outgoing finance minister David Caygill's projection of a modest fiscal surplus was inaccurate, and the country instead faced a fiscal deficit of NZ$3.7bn (4.8%) for 1991–92 if current fiscal policies continued. Current net public debt was 52% of GDP (43% after Telecom sale).[5]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthanasia
Agreed, I was caught in the same mess when leaving university. Would never vote National if my life depended on it.
Bolgers statement at the time was an excuse for the continued ideological neo-lib agenda of Government department sales and deregulation of the labour market (in association with cutting benefit levels), the consequences of which we are still feeling today. Look at what happened to the Gini co-efficient at this time. The ram raids of today have their roots in the increasing inequality that resulted from these decisions.
Yeah and look where it all started, a failed deregulation of the labour market.
Throwing decent workers on the scrapheap for the sake of failed Ideologies.
I wonder what other stat began to fail at this time. Oh yeah, home ownership.
If people have no stake in society, then they have no fear of losing anything by being on the wrong side of the law.
What is the definition of insanity? ACT calling for more of the same neolib prescription over and over and expecting a different result.
This is all so tedious.
Based on current polling, both Chippy and Luxon will be simping hard for NZ First's seats on Sunday morning.
Someone will be able to do a deal, it's all BS and bluster.
It's more likely that I become the next PM than we go for a 2nd election.
Presumably the way it would work is that enough of the 'swinging middle' (and I don't mean keys-in-the-bowl here) would be sufficiently pissed off at either National or Labour - whomever was in the box seat to negotiate and then unable to get a deal with NZ First - that the result would materially change the next time around. Or maybe the NZ First voters would all take umbrage and go elsewhere?
Would be a right laugh if 2nd round resulted in even more NZ First votes.
The 8% of people who voted for the parties that polled at 1-4% may vote second time around for a larger party such as National, and get them over the line. Or not, as the case may be eg people vote for Winston or David, and the whole thing is as messy as it was first time round.
Chris, Himself, my other half watched the Jack Tame interview with Winston. Much to my surprise when we voted early, I heard him tell my daughter, he gave New Zealand First his party vote. We are in a secure National party seat and he gave his vote on the electorate to the Act person running. It was the Jack Tame interview that caused the flip from the National party and electorate vote.
Plumbing the depths of his thinking, he said he thinks its important to give Labour the message. This was before Chris Bishop came out with the panicked ad.
His comment today was we watched National under John Key back track and lift GST. He said everytime Winston has been proved right, and so he chose that path.
I do not think people have who are passionate about politics has figured there are plenty like him who want responsible govt. And a Handbrake. Chris Luxton had better give David Seymour some serious reality talking to make it work for all of us.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.