Video Here

I think she's done a pretty good job so far. Do you think she can hold on her position this time around?

She's gone and its about time.

New Zealand is wasting away under the labour govt.
The world economy has been so buoyant for the past 10 years and the Labour govt has done nothing to take advantage of this what so ever.
Dr. Cullen is an idiot. Helen Clarke is a man. Parekura Horomia is too fat to move. Phil Goff scares me.

two_days_late Wrote:She's gone and its about time.

Josh Wrote:New Zealand is wasting away under the labour govt.
The world economy has been so buoyant for the past 10 years and the Labour govt has done nothing to take advantage of this what so ever.
Dr. Cullen is an idiot. Helen Clarke is a man. Parekura Horomia is too fat to move. Phil Goff scares me.

Oh my!

Here I was thinking that we could have some serious discussion about policies rather than baseless, inflamatory comments against politicians.

Then again, I guess it was to be expected.

Strange though how the both of you have neglected to submit any reference to a specific policy or piece of legislation implemented or even proposed by the Labour government that you disagree with, and a reason for why you think it was bad.

You can call anyone an idiot, you can call any woman a man, you can laugh at any man's obesity, you can even tell all of us that you feel very intimidated and frightened by an old man in a suit who works behind a desk (though that one confuses me); but if you don't provide a reason to justify your lack of approval, what am I to think? Are you trying to create a perception of their respective character's such that they resemble someone you can more easily relate to?

I would welcome some insightful discussion, if anyone is up to the challenge.

I'm opposed to Labour's proposition of abolishing the parental income test for student allowances. Why give ritch kids more money?

Because not all rich kids are spoon-fed by their parents when they go to university. I find it stupid that I can only loan ~$155/week from the Government for university, and if your parents earn under a combined wage you can get more for free (up to around $185 iirc). My accomodation alone down in Christchurch next year is $266/week. Although this is fully catered, it's the cheapest option that keeps me fed each week. This means just for accomodation I have to make up the $90 shortfall from my own savings - and I haven't even started paying for university. So unless you've got a huge amount of savings from the past few years (I've got up $5000 from this year), you're going to need help from your parents regardless of their income.

Also, the combined income of your parents can't be over around $77,000 if you want to apply for the allowance.
From stats.govt.nz:

Quote:For people receiving income from wages and salaries, growth has been moderate since the June
2007 quarter. The median weekly wage and salary income increased 2.7 percent, up to $729.

If i'm reading this correctly it means the average working couple who both earn either a salary or wage for 52 weeks of the year earn $75816.
So if both your parents earn slightly over New Zealand's national average income, you don't get a penny.

I'm not sure why Labour has announced that it'll get rid of the income test four years from now to try and help students out - it's not going to achieve them anything, most students that can vote this year will already be out of university by the time it rolls around.

I also dislike the way Labour has been campaigning against National. The whole 'atom bomb' against John Key turned out to be something that happened 20 years ago, and he wasn't even involved. I would write more, but i'm hungry :|

I'm really sick of political arguments right now, everyones just going to vote for whats best for themselves personally (and every policy is essentially good for some bad for others) any personal attacks and dubious statistics are just attempts at justifying your own selfishness (some times subconsciously).


But anyway, just a quick point i noticed;

Quote:I'm not sure why Labour has announced that it'll get rid of the income test four years from now to try and help students out

Why cant they make it happen right away? or maybe in one years time? why will this policy come into affect right in time for the next election?
Sure, some of labours policys are good (and recently labour and national have had increasingly similar policys) but they all take so long to happen.


Interestingly, I notice that the Maori party has some great policys this year,

-Government subsidised community based work instead of the dole
-first $15,000 or so tax free
-Full ban on tobacco

Probably not practical though...

Both Labour and National have been stupid. Those ads from labour are so low but then John Key is such a douche bag in debates. I wouldn't want any of them as priminister the way they are acting, it's so immature and not professional at all.

Quote:everyones just going to vote for whats best for themselves personally (and every policy is essentially good for some bad for others) any personal attacks and dubious statistics are just attempts at justifying your own selfishness (some times subconsciously).

Case in point:

Quote:Those ads from labour are so low but then John Key is such a douche bag in debates

The Labour ads are bad, but RJ's going to vote labour, and justify's it by calling john Key a douche bag

Quote:Here I was thinking that we could have some serious discussion about policies rather than baseless, inflamatory comments against politicians.

Then again, I guess it was to be expected.

Strange though how the both of you have neglected to submit any reference to a specific policy or piece of legislation implemented or even proposed by the Labour government that you disagree with, and a reason for why you think it was bad.

At a fundamental level I agree with the majority Nationals policies when compared with Labours.

Cutting back on Bureaucracy is a big one for me, being in Wellington I know a lot of people that work for government organizations and do very little work for jobs that only exist because its politically correct. Public sector organizations are notoriously inefficient as there is no competition. It makes no difference how hard these people work as they have no one to compete against, but they still get paid. Don't get me wrong though, I very much support the fundamental things like universal health care, but what we don't need is the government running banks.

Toughening up on violent crime is also important, and no parole for repeat violent offenders is a great idea. You get your second chance, but after that your a threat to society. (I'm not that happy about living in a damp flat while my tax dollars pay for plasma TV's and underfloor heating in our prisons either...)

In times of Economic trouble I also trust a National government far more, John Key has an established financial background and has a great deal of knowledge on how economies work. Helen Clark on the other hand has little experience in this area (compared with Key, not your average NZer). After 9 years of prosperity Cullen has only just given us tax cuts, which looks like an obvious election bribe to me. After talking to Key up at TechED in Auckland earlier this year he said that due to New Zealand's size and remoteness we are an information economy, and things such as broadband are hugely important to us. I totally agree on this point, and I'm sure that many of you guys will also.

National want to pump more money into the fundamental things such as healthcare and education, rather than spending money on grants for this and benefits for that. Our literacy rates are appalling and our health system is pretty close behind. I think we should get these fundamentals right, and then focus on the bonus stuff.

Were at a time where record numbers of people are crossing the ditch to Aussie as the quality of life is so much better. I believe that if you work hard you should be rewarded for it, and if you can't be bothered working then you should receive little support from the state. (Yes can't be bothered, not are physically incapable of working).

Finally, even if you disagree with any of these points, Labour's been in power for 9 years and have gotten comfortable. The last time National were in power almost everyone on here (myself included) would have been to young to really know/care about the difference. I'd like to see what it's like living under a National government and then decide for myself which I think is better.

That's what i think at a very high level anyway, but I'll be happy to discuss anything more specific

Quote:John Key is such a douche bag in debates

There were a few times in the last leaders debate that he slipped up, i.e the springbok tour and how he always says "Actually" (that just really annoys me for some reason). But you need to remember that Helen Clark has far more experience debating under that level of pressure that he does, and that in no way does that mean she is smarter or her policies are better for the country. It was refreshing to see that 66% of the country agreed that Key won, and perhaps people are starting to realize that her condescending snicker does not qualify as a response to the points they Key makes.

</rant>