Political prognostications for 2009

In response to 5:

Yes, April 1 tax cuts would not happen under Cullen, as it is not an election year. Tax cuts are necessary and even Gordon Brown has done it albeit temporarily with cutting VAT.

Ludicrous that JK doesn't know what caused the crisis, it is on this very website last link of Politics!

Infrastructure and reducing debt. Very good a key plank of JK's plan.

Excise taxes? Are you mad?! The Great Depression stormed out of control by those very things. Get out of the 1920s.

The voters are never wrong... just misinformed.

Tax cuts are necessary to increase growth to stimulate the Consumption and Government spending parts of GDP. Then the money follows through the 'multiplier' effect.

Credit is already scarce enough as it is, we are only safe by the Australian banks actually stepping in for once!

Deficits are a normal fiscal policy strategy otherwise you get Greenspanesque credit loosening...

I hope Mr Peters and NZ First do not feel too left-out.

We heard enough from Richard Prebble when he was finally eradicated, but it would be hard to stop his momentum for speaking out of turn - he has made a point of training Rodney Hide in the art.

So, perhaps we will hear a bit on from the side-line?

Simon Bridges?

Winston Peters was Tauranga's MP for 20-odd years. Talking about "voters getting it wrong" - Tauranga certainly got it wrong with Bob Clarkson - and realised it.

When we have a prime minister and tourism minister setting a very poor example as regards NZ's nationhood, there is certainly a place for NZ First and politicians like Mr Peters.

Tauranga have placed their faith in Simon Bridges who has in turn vouched for his true predecessor.

Perhaps some affiliations may develop and become evident?

Murray is obviously practising his stand up comedy routine that he will be trying to perform for the next 6 years.

You said that Key bought the election with tax cuts, I think it is better to win an election on giving money back to the long suffering taxpayer than say buying an election with STOLEN taxpayer money like Labour did in 2005 don't you think? $900,000 was quite an overspend Muzza!

I worry that once the new ministers settle into their new offices that we see even more negligence from the previous Govt. Labour must have known they were going to lose a long time ago as their scorched earth policy has been revealed and there is simply nothing left for National and co to spend. Worse still, we have Cullens trainset that will add more to the debt for years to come. I feel sorry for the Nats as they are stuck and can't do too much because of Labours kneecapping.

Better still Muzza, why don't you have a nice cup of cocoa and relax and let the politicans do their jobs.

#7 StephenR - touche! :) Good luck in that case!

Ahhhhh Murray!!

Sour Grapes anyone? Throwing the toys out the pram? I't's my ball and if i'm not picked I'm taking it home?

Any of those ring any bells with you Murray?...all of the above?

Your a sad, sad man....your 'Icon' Helen is gone, get over it!!...stop blaming most of NZ voters of being 'hoodwinked' and 'fooled' for voting in National, and take off the red tinted glasses and ADMIT that most NZ voters had had enough of HC/MC et al, or is that possibility too hard to swallow and it's easier to assumme there was a massive right wing plot to hypnotise the masses?

Grow up Murray...your party lost!

Hahaha..... so we should all be like Prime Minister John Key, Laurence.

"Grow ever smarter and each individual exercise better decisions"

I regard 15 - 20 million dollars "applied" to housing for one family to be the area where the reform is needed (read #23). Stuff all this other hyperbole you go on about.

People talk about "the money companies are extracting for their shareholders". They are wrong. The shareholders and other savers are being ripped off something shocking. It is all these technocrats and fake managers - those that want 33%, million dollar pay increases when they have produced nothing - the income gap - that is where the reform is needed, Laurence.

You have not thought it through and the things you bemoan are not the problem. "Big spending" is the problem, and tax cuts to the wealthy do not mean more investment these days, they mean even bigger spending - more multi-million dollar, palatial homes to mention just a bit of it.

Brett:

Please keep an eye out for arrogance amidst the National government, will you?

I think arrogance and a born-to-rule attitude abounds; even since John Key made an early, revealing statement that "explaining is losing".

By and large, Labour accepts that this result has put them into opposition for the next three years. After the 2005 result, Don Brash was on his toes for months and predicting the imminent collapse of the government.

Helen Clark was renowned for her compromising ability, and this continual reference to the "arrogance" of her government is another nonsense catchword, similar to the many others which became the substance of the National-led opposition - except for baying for endless tax cuts, there was very little else to be of note.

Voters are able to get it wrong, Brett - probably, that is how democracies are able to degenerate.

Hysteria is able to prevail.

Give thought to an over-reaction to the tragedy of 9/11?

However you look at it, President George W Bush is going out of office with a significant number of voters saying "they got it wrong" in the sense that I am saying "voters do get it wrong".

Admittedly, they voted according to their best judgment at the time - we all make our decisions like that.

Murray, nothwithstanding that this is not what the thread is about, in a democracy it is impossible for the voters to "get it wrong". Voters make a choice. Some will agree, some will not. To say "that result is wrong" is to say you would prefer a dictatorship such as Zimbabwe under Mugabe or Iraq under Saddam Hussain, where the result is predetermined, but as far as supporters are concerned, is "right". Perhaps your comments were tongue in cheek but I agree with Laurence. It is precisely this arrogant "we cannot be wrong" attitude that cost Labour the election. It appears some like you and Michael Cullen still don't get that. Credit to HC, I think she has.

As far as this article is concerned, pure entertainment and as such quite well done.

What are your thoughts?

You have not got any?

Why do you bother to comment, or even read the comments of others, for that matter?

As another prognostication, will John Key sell his $5.6 million (at least) Hawaiian luxury pad and buy a second holiday home in New Zealand, perhaps in the Queenstown Lakes District?

The Key's also have a $6.8 million home in Auckland's Parnell area and a $3 million property at Omaha Beach, north of Auckland (and other dwellings)- NZ Herald, Jan 4.

My recollection is that as part of his Christmas message, JPK said he and his family would be holidaying at the bach at Omaha, and would perhaps/maybe go out of the country for a while, and I could pick he wanted to be vague about the latter activity.

The NZ Herald article suggests that he is spending his holiday at this luxury Hawiian holiday home. The article also says that a spokesman for Key wouldn't say if members of the Diplomatic Protection Squad are accompanying the Key family to Maui. Do NZer's not have a right to know what resources are being expended on prime ministerial security? We were informed when it became policy to service the leader of the opposition (then Don Brash). What is the policy when the prime minister goes holidaying around the world? Did Helen Clark ask for and recieve such services? I think Helen Clark would have been prepared to tell us, even though it is JPK who makes the noises about more disclosure.

JPK says about Labour (and supporters) that they have the "politics of envy". This is unfair comment. We should be able to expect our prime minister to set an example.

JPK sets the following bad examples:

* Being Minister of Tourism and holidaying abroad (not to climb distant mountains, but to chill out) when the NZ Tourism Industry (and the Australian) are making particular pleas for holidaying within one's own country at the present time.

* Being evasive about going abroad for holidaying and whether diplomatic protection squad services are being used.

* Displaying opulence and flambouyance in housing when this has been a diversion from productive investment to NZ's disadvantage, a manifestation of a troublesome income gap and something which will have to be corrected with new housing developments.

* Personal investments in foreign assets rather than a political leader investing in one's own country - dictator's and Right-wing leaders have plenty of such real and financial assets.

* Doing these things, and having a personal history of going abroad to make money when a major political platform is how to keep young NZers at home and working in their own country.

JPK is holidaying in the same part of the world as Barack Obama, but Obama is holidaying in his own country.

After all the Rogernomics and state asset sales, and the profiteers taking themselves and their gains abroad New Zealand needs examples of those who have loyalty, belief and confidence in our country.

This is not the example which has been set by our previous prime ministers.