*yawn* Is alive

[BlackUnicorn]

Well hello, may have been to a forum like this...got annoyed about something and just left.

Looks interesting I guess....getting sick of the mass prayers here.....

By that I mean the mass Earthquake prayers to the

Though the major thing that effects me is our right wing popularist govt (I have to choose between Greens and semi-Nationalists if I want to keep NZ from third world status) wants to scrap interest free loans, cut the education budget and welfare to quote 'help Christchurch', noting that the Earthquake gives him to the excuse to do this....politics....got to be sick of it right?

Scrapping interest free student loans has been floated by the Finance Minister to help pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch.

Bill English is refusing to rule out slashing back some programmes as the government grapples with the potentially $20 billion project.

Cuts are being floated because English is refusing to rule them out.

"We're just not getting into ruling in and ruling out, because we are still trying to get our heads around the actual costs of what has gone on in Canterbury and we need to give ourselves the room to see how we can find the cash," English said.

He is also refusing to rule out cuts to the Working for Families scheme which gives tax credits to parents, even those earning middle and upper incomes.

"We're just not ruling stuff in or out," he said.

When the 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck Christchurch a week ago, the economy was already fragile.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has downgraded its economic growth forecasts for this year from 2.3% to 0.3% - in other words, virtually no growth at all.

The NZIER said Christchurch employs about 15% of the country's workforce so the earthquake will have a big impact on the national economy.
Advertisement

NZIER economist Shamubeel Eaqub said about half of the growth forecast reduction is because of the earthquake.

"But also we have got an economy that is already quite weak. We've got food prices which are rising quickly, we have fuel prices that are going to rise quickly, so we have a really noxious mix in the first half of this year and we think the economy is going to be very weak through this year," he said.

That means more people could lose their jobs.

"There's some indication that's happening now, so in the short-term we just want to make everyone has some cash in their pocket while they sort out their circumstances," said English.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/english-...ld-4043018

A new concept, they cut their bloated $150,000+ salaries back to pre-recession levels.

Apparently cutting education so young people end up in lower paying jobs, while simultaneously keeping the poor poor increases the GDP?

[theVOID]

Welcome fellow kiwi

I'm from the Shakey City btw, it's chaos so i've escaped to my parents house for a while.

And John Key ruled out adding interest to student loans...

Oh, and even if the Government cut their salaries (which they should) the amount recovered would be a rather pithy amount, hardly making a dent in the deficit.

The quake is going to cost us $20 billion (how much of that is insured privately i'm not sure), if you're against cutting spending to pay for it you have two options... 1) Raise taxes, 2) Borrow more (we already owe 15 Billion...), neither of these are great options, they are in all likelihood much worse than cutting spending and subsidies.

Another solution that they'll never go for (sadly) would be to remove all taxes in Christchurch for the next 5 years and relax building regulations which would 1) Make reinvesting in Christchurch an opportunity and not a burden 2) Make it easier for people to rebuild their homes. Even then we would have to cut spending to account for the lost tax revenue in Christchurch, but that is far better than borrowing to fund it.

And removing interest free loans is NOT "cutting education" it's shifting the burden back to the people who chose to study - Less people will chose to study but they're mostly the ones who will drop out anyway.

[BlackUnicorn]

Welcome fellow kiwi

I'm from the Shakey City btw, it's chaos so i've escaped to my parents house for a while.

And John Key ruled out adding interest to student loans...

Oh, and even if the Government cut their salaries (which they should) the amount recovered would be a rather pithy amount, hardly making a dent in the deficit.

The quake is going to cost us $20 billion (how much of that is insured privately i'm not sure), if you're against cutting spending to pay for it you have two options... 1) Raise taxes, 2) Borrow more (we already owe 15 Billion...), neither of these are great options, they are in all likelihood much worse than cutting spending and subsidies.

Another solution that they'll never go for (sadly) would be to remove all taxes in Christchurch for the next 5 years and relax building regulations which would 1) Make reinvesting in Christchurch an opportunity and not a burden 2) Make it easier for people to rebuild their homes. Even then we would have to cut spending to account for the lost tax revenue in Christchurch, but that is far better than borrowing to fund it.

And removing interest free loans is NOT "cutting education" it's shifting the burden back to the people who chose to study - Less people will chose to study but they're mostly the ones who will drop out anyway.

Actually my concern is more on the fact that government has been trying to get out of it, I am one of those people who believed ending free education in NZ was a terrible idea, perhaps John Key and Sir Roger Douglas and all their government cronies should pay back their free education to NZ, they didn't mind it when they held out their hands and got their share of NZ's bank (which they later sold through insider trading schemes to their close friends and put NZ further into debt - ironic that NZ is now owned by an Australian Bank aka Westpac).

But in all seriousness, if you believe National will rebuild Christchurch you must be joking, if he raises taxes he will hurt economic recovery and hurt the poor even further than he already has with his lovely GST hike, as for actual rebuilding it will be a few heritage buildings that are saved and flash new apartments for the rich, the lower middle class will have to sell up and leave the city.*

Personally I hope National looses the election and gets turfed out, we are in heavy debt and all along Labour didn't want to cut and 'hope' for miracles like catching up with Australia, but knowing popularism people will believe John Key, expect higher crime, more poor, and 10,000+ more educated people leaving to Australia. I shouldn't laugh but if you believe the Nats will do anything positive economically here..you should read up where John Key gets his ideas from... the failed Meril Lynch that had to beg for a bailout and screwed its fellow Americans.

*That is if the developers grand new visions don't go by economic reality.

[theVOID]

Actually my concern is more on the fact that government has been trying to get out of it, I am one of those people who believed ending free education in NZ was a terrible idea, perhaps John Key and Sir Roger Douglas and all their government cronies should pay back their free education to NZ, they didn't mind it when they held out their hands and got their share of NZ's bank (which they later sold through insider trading schemes to their close friends and put NZ further into debt - ironic that NZ is now owned by an Australian Bank aka Westpac).

Free education at a tertiary level costs way too much money, not to mention the number of people who get into tertiary education and drop out is much higher, that's ultimately a waste of resources. If you want to go on to further study you should see it as an investment in your own future, investment is a risk and risks aren't free and they don't always pay off.

Key and Douglas aren't exactly similar economically... Key has more in common with Helen Clarke.

How exactly does westpac own us? They own a big chunk of our national debt, is that what you mean? Shame on them, lending us money when we asked for it!

I know fuck all about the NZ banking history, maybe you'd like to elaborate a bit more?

But in all seriousness, if you believe National will rebuild Christchurch you must be joking,

I don't think they will (or should) rebuild Christchurch (in an absolute sense) any more than I think a labour government will (or should) do it. They're going to help by giving people capital to rebuild their homes, they're going to pay for roads and other infrastructure and they're going to give temporary financial relief to people, it's ultimately going to be individuals and businesses who rebuild the city, government's role will be significant but not the major player.

if he raises taxes he will hurt economic recovery and hurt the poor even further than he already has with his lovely GST hike, as for actual rebuilding it will be a few heritage buildings that are saved and flash new apartments for the rich, the lower middle class will have to sell up and leave the city.

National won't raise taxes, so what are the other options available to pay off the bill? Borrowing money and cutting spending. Unless you have another idea?

I agree that raising GST proportionate to tax raises was a bad idea, I'd sooner see zero GST and income tax raised proportionately, it's better for the people who spend a larger portion of their income.

They're going to spend taxpayer money on apartments for the rich now are they? Bullshit. Firstly, the high income earners will get the least amount of government support, they're insured privately and just like companies they will be required to exhaust their insurance before receiving a cent (just like large corporations and multi-nationals aren't going to get any help with paying wages). Secondly, it's political suicide, not even ACT would do it.

Personally I hope National looses the election and gets turfed out,

No chance.

we are in heavy debt and all along Labour didn't want to cut and 'hope' for miracles like catching up with Australia, but knowing popularism people will believe John Key, expect higher crime, more poor, and 10,000+ more educated people leaving to Australia.

Cut and hope is better than borrow and spend and hope.

And "popularism" means what exactly? Unless you mean populism? If that's what you mean the use of the word contradicts the sentences you've used it in.

Labour got us into debt in the first place precisely because they didn't want to cut, you can't have all the social services that they created without raising taxes or having revenue increase via trade and productivity, and with productivity barely growing there was no way it was ever going to work.

Closing the wage gap hasn't worked, it's increased by $40 a week, 5.6% rise in NZ wages vs 6.7% increase in Aus wages, a great deal of that has to do with how the countries did during the recession, namely the fact that Australia didn't have one, considering unemployment rose 3% here it's reasonable to say that if we didn't have a recession the gap would have closed, though with all the data we need to account for it's difficult to say.

I shouldn't laugh but if you believe the Nats will do anything positive economically here..you should read up where John Key gets his ideas from... the failed Meril Lynch that had to beg for a bailout and screwed its fellow Americans.

Hate to burst your bubble here but Key was with Merill Lynch back when they were doing solid business back in the Clinton days, long before the financial sector became reckless and negligent spurred on by guaranteed loans and cheap money - Besides, there is a huge difference between political economics and financial trading, very little of his financial trading skills and ideas are applicable to the former.

And NONE of those banks and investment firms should have been bailed out. Corporate welfare is something that does far more harm than good.

And what exactly do you think Labour is going to do to help economic growth that DOESN'T involve getting into more debt? Is there really any point borrowing money so we can live better now when future generations are left with the bill? It's like a mother saying "I need to keep borrowing to fund my lifestyle but don't worry my children will pay you back".

[BlackUnicorn]

Actually my concern is more on the fact that government has been trying to get out of it, I am one of those people who believed ending free education in NZ was a terrible idea, perhaps John Key and Sir Roger Douglas and all their government cronies should pay back their free education to NZ, they didn't mind it when they held out their hands and got their share of NZ's bank (which they later sold through insider trading schemes to their close friends and put NZ further into debt - ironic that NZ is now owned by an Australian Bank aka Westpac).

Free education at a tertiary level costs way too much money, not to mention the number of people who get into tertiary education and drop out is much higher, that's ultimately a waste of resources. If you want to go on to further study you should see it as an investment in your own future, investment is a risk and risks aren't free and they don't always pay off.

Key and Douglas aren't exactly similar economically... Key has more in common with Helen Clarke.

How exactly does westpac own us? They own a big chunk of our national debt, is that what you mean? Shame on them, lending us money when we asked for it!

I know fuck all about the NZ banking history, maybe you'd like to elaborate a bit more?

But in all seriousness, if you believe National will rebuild Christchurch you must be joking,

I don't think they will (or should) rebuild Christchurch (in an absolute sense) any more than I think a labour government will (or should) do it. They're going to help by giving people capital to rebuild their homes, they're going to pay for roads and other infrastructure and they're going to give temporary financial relief to people, it's ultimately going to be individuals and businesses who rebuild the city, government's role will be significant but not the major player.

if he raises taxes he will hurt economic recovery and hurt the poor even further than he already has with his lovely GST hike, as for actual rebuilding it will be a few heritage buildings that are saved and flash new apartments for the rich, the lower middle class will have to sell up and leave the city.

National won't raise taxes, so what are the other options available to pay off the bill? Borrowing money and cutting spending. Unless you have another idea?

I agree that raising GST proportionate to tax raises was a bad idea, I'd sooner see zero GST and income tax raised proportionately, it's better for the people who spend a larger portion of their income.

They're going to spend taxpayer money on apartments for the rich now are they? Bullshit. Firstly, the high income earners will get the least amount of government support, they're insured privately and just like companies they will be required to exhaust their insurance before receiving a cent (just like large corporations and multi-nationals aren't going to get any help with paying wages). Secondly, it's political suicide, not even ACT would do it.

Personally I hope National looses the election and gets turfed out,

No chance.

we are in heavy debt and all along Labour didn't want to cut and 'hope' for miracles like catching up with Australia, but knowing popularism people will believe John Key, expect higher crime, more poor, and 10,000+ more educated people leaving to Australia.

Cut and hope is better than borrow and spend and hope.

And "popularism" means what exactly? Unless you mean populism? If that's what you mean the use of the word contradicts the sentences you've used it in.

Labour got us into debt in the first place precisely because they didn't want to cut, you can't have all the social services that they created without raising taxes or having revenue increase via trade and productivity, and with productivity barely growing there was no way it was ever going to work.

Closing the wage gap hasn't worked, it's increased by $40 a week, 5.6% rise in NZ wages vs 6.7% increase in Aus wages, a great deal of that has to do with how the countries did during the recession, namely the fact that Australia didn't have one, considering unemployment rose 3% here it's reasonable to say that if we didn't have a recession the gap would have closed, though with all the data we need to account for it's difficult to say.

I shouldn't laugh but if you believe the Nats will do anything positive economically here..you should read up where John Key gets his ideas from... the failed Meril Lynch that had to beg for a bailout and screwed its fellow Americans.

Hate to burst your bubble here but Key was with Merill Lynch back when they were doing solid business back in the Clinton days, long before the financial sector became reckless and negligent spurred on by guaranteed loans and cheap money - Besides, there is a huge difference between political economics and financial trading, very little of his financial trading skills and ideas are applicable to the former.

And NONE of those banks and investment firms should have been bailed out. Corporate welfare is something that does far more harm than good.

And what exactly do you think Labour is going to do to help economic growth that DOESN'T involve getting into more debt? Is there really any point borrowing money so we can live better now when future generations are left with the bill? It's like a mother saying "I need to keep borrowing to fund my lifestyle but don't worry my children will pay you back".

I like to bait, its one of things that people get pissed off about me.

My political allegiance differs by country and issues. I never vote Labour (vote Green instead), in the US I would be aligned with the Republicans, not due to religion or civil rights but due to their more radical economic thinking, and more due to the fact only the Republicans and Democrats have the real power over the system.

As for John Key, I don't like him purely because he was popular. My favorite politicians are unpopular, and think and act for themselves, it was no surprise that I liked Helen Clark over John Key.

Finally for your questions:

1. Borrowing money is the best option, alongside building up infrastructure, and massive immigration (a strategy that worked successfully for NZ in the 19th century by all accounts), cutting is not a proven strategy just like spending all you can. There are plenty of people willing to come to NZ and improve the country but the government bares the door. The worst possible way to get out of it is to borrow or cut, and when things get worse you can guess which party becomes unpopular and gets the boot.

2. Labour AND National. I wouldn't put it on a single party. But for a while now (1970s onwards) public and private debt has been steadily increasing faster than the GDP is growing, so the problem has been ignored for a while and reared its ugly head in the last few years. Labour had its mess of a deal with Toll NZ that is true, but its the fault of the bureaucracy, not Labour that there was a budget blowout before the recession.

3. Westpac is the governments principle/main banker, a bank in individual terms owns you if you have a loan with them you can't outright repay, the same with the New Zealand government in its position with Westpac, and it has the NZ government in a perfection position, to rape NZ dry (if it wants to), they may lend money but at a much higher interest rate than say if the debt was divided up among multiple banks in several countries or even among several different Australian banks. NZ is in a worse position than the US in this respect.

4. I never said taxpayer money would go into it, developer money would. Right now the land would be cheap (in comparison to pre-Earthquake levels), and with enough manipulation of local councils and buying out of residents a few areas of inner city land could be bought for the right price. Christchurch will be lost to overseas developers and loose its charm is what I meant, plus unless he plans massive state housing programs or provides jobs for people in Christchurch in the interim period (both would add billions on to debt) then the lower class will have to leave Christchurch, if he pushes through the ideas on cutting welfare then its guaranteed.

5. Speculation has always existed, merely regulations were changed in the Reagan years, then under Clinton and then under Bush to make it easier, and John Key joined in 1995 and left to join the US Fed, which many blame for the recent financial crisis (from Michael Moore to Ron Paul, not to mention the entire Republican Party and significant portions of the Democratic Party).

In 1995, he joined Merrill Lynch as head of Asian foreign exchange in Singapore. That same year he was promoted to Merrill's global head of foreign exchange, based in London, where he may have earned around US$2.25 million a year including bonuses, which is about NZ$5 million at 2001 exchange rates.[3][8] Some co-workers called him "the smiling assassin" for maintaining his usual cheerfulness while sacking dozens (some say hundreds) of staff after heavy losses from the 1998 Russian financial crisis.[4][8] He was a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1999 to 2001.[9]

6. It decreased by chance, or you are going to have to admit Labour (and previous National) policies improved the economy, and that John Key merely took their work for his own.

7. John Key is popular now, but not when the shit really hits the fan, and the unemployment and poverty figures skyrocket in response, companies leave the country, and last but not least everyone starts striking for better wages and welfare the government can't afford to give them. Will merely booting National solve the problem, nope, but if it weakens National and Labour so they are no longer the dominating force in politics (and there are plenty of small parties who would be a breath of fresh air wanting a go) I am all for it.

But to be honest I would never trust or like a banker, accountant, stock broker or market speculator to run a country.

PS: Not saying Helen Clark's Labour govt was perfect, but I doubt NZ would have recovered at all from the 1980s if she hadn't been there.

[theVOID]

I like to bait, its one of things that people get pissed off about me.

My political allegiance differs by country and issues. I never vote Labour (vote Green instead), in the US I would be aligned with the Republicans, not due to religion or civil rights but due to their more radical economic thinking, and more due to the fact only the Republicans and Democrats have the real power over the system.

Greens? I'd vote for them if they stayed the fuck out of social issues, if the environment was truly their priority they wouldn't get involved in social policy, doing so ultimately hurts the movement, I did a post on this about a year ago.

As for John Key, I don't like him purely because he was popular.

That's completely irrational.

My favorite politicians are unpopular, and think and act for themselves, it was no surprise that I liked Helen Clark over John Key.

Umm... Helen Clark was EXTREMELY popular... That's how she got through 3 terms.

1. Borrowing money is the best option, alongside building up infrastructure

The benefits of debt funded infrastructure are extremely overrated, was it the case that it was a sure win every country in the world would be doing it constantly, they don't however, and projects like "the bridge to nowhere" are shining examples of the potential failures.

Also, getting into more debt to stimulate the economy is basically nothing more than offsetting the costs for short term gains, you might create jobs and give money to local manufacturers but that project has to generate or facilitate the costs plus interest, when we're already $253 billion in debt and running a 15 billion dollar deficit, and that is with teaser interest rates...

and massive immigration (a strategy that worked successfully for NZ in the 19th century by all accounts),

That's completely off base, firstly, borrowing to stimulate the economy loses most of it's few potential benefits as soon as the labour force is imported, the biggest advantage in the short term (and what makes the risk and debt arguable) is the lowering of unemployment that generates tax revenue (which is realistically just the government reacquiring some of it's debt) and cuts the need for welfare (which is actually cheaper than government 'stimulus' jobs unless the project is economically beneficial). Secondly, there is more immigration in times of surpluses when the demand for workers is greater than what the national labour force can provide.

cutting is not a proven strategy just like spending all you can.

The aim of cutting is to get rid of the deficit so we can get out of debt, it's 100% proven to do that...

There are plenty of people willing to come to NZ and improve the country but the government bares the door.

There are plenty more people right here who need work, we should only be allowing immigrants with specialist low-supply skills at the moment.

The worst possible way to get out of it is to borrow or cut, and when things get worse you can guess which party becomes unpopular and gets the boot.

You have to do one or the other, cutting is a guaranteed way to remove the deficit, borrowing is a huge risk that usually backfires and increases the deficit, we can't stay in debt forever either, eventually we're going to have to pay it back and at much higher interest rates than at present.

2. Labour AND National. I wouldn't put it on a single party. But for a while now (1970s onwards) public and private debt has been steadily increasing faster than the GDP is growing, so the problem has been ignored for a while and reared its ugly head in the last few years. Labour had its mess of a deal with Toll NZ that is true, but its the fault of the bureaucracy, not Labour that there was a budget blowout before the recession.

Exactly why I'm small government, bureaucracy is far less efficient than private spending, we should get the government out of everything we can.

3. Westpac is the governments principle/main banker, a bank in individual terms owns you if you have a loan with them you can't outright repay, the same with the New Zealand government in its position with Westpac, and it has the NZ government in a perfection position, to rape NZ dry (if it wants to), they may lend money but at a much higher interest rate than say if the debt was divided up among multiple banks in several countries or even among several different Australian banks. NZ is in a worse position than the US in this respect.

Being in debt doesn't in any way mean you are owned by another person, it means you are obligated to return them what you've borrowed. If we were to default on our loan we'd have to go through something like Ireland is going through right now, sell state assets and cut spending radically - We're much better off doing it gradually now while we still have the opportunity.

Westpac doesn't even own a majortiy of our national debt, our currency is held by banks, hedge funds and other nations, the UK owns 7.8%, Japan owns 7.1%, Australia in total owns 6.8% - Perhaps half of what Australia owns is in Westpac... if that.

NZ is in nowhere near as bad a position as the US, they so much money that they would completely collapse without more loans, some time soon China, Japan etc are going to stop buying their debt and the US will have to print money to pay the interest rates - That will cause inflation to rise even further, wiping out the value of the dollar and increasing prices and subsequently the cost of living.

Also, having debt across multiple sources doesn't make bugger all difference, everything ultimately balances around the global reserve currency, the US Dollar.

4. I never said taxpayer money would go into it, developer money would. Right now the land would be cheap (in comparison to pre-Earthquake levels), and with enough manipulation of local councils and buying out of residents a few areas of inner city land could be bought for the right price. Christchurch will be lost to overseas developers and loose its charm is what I meant, plus unless he plans massive state housing programs or provides jobs for people in Christchurch in the interim period (both would add billions on to debt) then the lower class will have to leave Christchurch, if he pushes through the ideas on cutting welfare then its guaranteed.

Great, let people invest, we need it, the whole country needs it, the cost is people live further out of the city? So be it.

Government is too easily manipulated, that's why they need less power to begin with, so they can't be manipulated to create favourable conditions.

State housing = shit housing. Realistically most people have home insurance (all the sensible ones anyway) so private insurance will account for the bulk of it - The best thing government can do in this regard is to remove regulations and restrictions around building so people can get their homes rebuilt much faster.

How you got from this to "the lower class will have to leave" I don't know, but I smell bullshit. The vast majority won't be going anywhere, the labour jobs created in the city will be mostly going to low income earners, they are the ones who would take the jobs because they're just the unskilled labour they need. And the government is exhausting the $15 billion dollar EQC fund as well as ramping up welfare payments and removing some of the means testing in order to keep people fed and sheltered - If one way of doing that is putting interest back on student loans it's more than a worthwhile compromise.

5. Speculation has always existed, merely regulations were changed in the Reagan years, then under Clinton and then under Bush to make it easier, and John Key joined in 1995 and left to join the US Fed, which many blame for the recent financial crisis (from Michael Moore to Ron Paul, not to mention the entire Republican Party and significant portions of the Democratic Party).

I blame the Fed too for a great portion of it, the government subsidies and guaranteed loans were the other massive contributor, they combined manipulate the markets with no real concern for the actual monetary relationships or the risks in doing so, and I'm not on the same page economically as John key - He's better than Labour and I agree we need to make cuts to spending (to a far larger extent than him) but I don't think he should have borrowed more for his tax cuts and I don't think he should have agreed to bail out failed finance companies.

In 1995, he joined Merrill Lynch as head of Asian foreign exchange in Singapore. That same year he was promoted to Merrill's global head of foreign exchange, based in London, where he may have earned around US$2.25 million a year including bonuses, which is about NZ$5 million at 2001 exchange rates.[3][8] Some co-workers called him "the smiling assassin" for maintaining his usual cheerfulness while sacking dozens (some say hundreds) of staff after heavy losses from the 1998 Russian financial crisis.[4][8] He was a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1999 to 2001.[9]

His work on the Fed was before the stupidly low interest rates.

6. It decreased by chance, or you are going to have to admit Labour (and previous National) policies improved the economy, and that John Key merely took their work for his own.

What is this referring to? It's hard to keep track when you're putting everything at the end of the post rather than layering quotes like most people.

7. John Key is popular now, but not when the shit really hits the fan, and the unemployment and poverty figures skyrocket in response, companies leave the country, and last but not least everyone starts striking for better wages and welfare the government can't afford to give them. Will merely booting National solve the problem, nope, but if it weakens National and Labour so they are no longer the dominating force in politics (and there are plenty of small parties who would be a breath of fresh air wanting a go) I am all for it.

What makes you think Unemployment and poverty will skyrocket?

People shouldn't expect more when we are broke, it we stopped inflation we could at least ensure that the cost of living remained stable.

I agree small parties need more power, that's why I'm voting Libertarianz.

But to be honest I would never trust or like a banker, accountant, stock broker or market speculator to run a country.

But you'd trust someone with some useless as hell degree in social/political sciences? I'd want someone fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I sure as fuck don't trust Phil Goff, he's an incompetent asshole with a fancy political science degree (which essentially means he's been Keynesian brainwashed) or that fat slut Annette King.

PS: Not saying Helen Clark's Labour govt was perfect, but I doubt NZ would have recovered at all from the 1980s if she hadn't been there.

Helen took Labour to the right more than it had ever been, I think she did a good job transforming the party and essentially removing blanket socialism from the country, still, she managed to destroy the surplass... We had a chance of getting out of debt in the next 20 years for a while there.

[KichigaiNeko]

YAY!!

Another flamin mad Kiwi!!

from across the pond