NationStates Jolt Archive

The only reason why we're 'participating' because Helen thinks if we earn enough brownie points with the yanks, they'll agree to have a freetrade agreement with us - yes, she really is that naive.

I didn't agree with the war in Iraq, whilst at the same time, however, I didn't agree with the rubbish about "the enbargo is making the Iraqi's suffer" - a load of crap, food, medicine and a number of other items could come into the country unrestricted.

Free tade deal with the U.S.? Australia got there first and planted their flag on it. Right now, we should consider not screwing that up with Chile or China if we're to get even.

The goddamn embargoes not only starved and diseased many Iraqis, it also gave Saddam the sort of anti-Western sentiment he needed. If the UN wasn't as sloppy the first time round, they would have gotten rid of the bastard and there'd be peace in Iraq now. The UN forces were so close as they've alrady incited a major Shi'ite uprising, thinking that they would work it out for themselves, but Saddam's forces regrouped (this was T-72s vs. men with stolen AKs) and a massacre resulted.

Clinton had sh*t luck trying to have him overthrown in '96 but Saddam's forces got there first and captured even the CIA's comms. equipment, cursing back at the Americans. Many anti-Saddam commanders were compromised and executed and CIA agents barely managed to save their own asses.

This leaves Bush Jr. to drool over the oil field while pretending to be the 'good guy' and divert the public attention to the fact that bin Laden is still at large. The war's putting a spin on the oil prices and I'm forced to have my wallet drained at the fuel pumps.

I'm not surprised; the only ones who have been arrested, I'd say, are those who are openly inciting rebellion against the peace keepers, and supporting terrorist attacks - thats no different to a priest who may advocate the bombing of abortion clinics.

I'm not surprised either. That's just more of that same sh*t, different arsehole.

But at the same time, the threat of terrorism should result in the curbing of civil liberties and disrupting our way of life; as soon as we start bring in draconian legislation, we've already allowed the terrorists to win.

Vigilance is the price of nationhood, so there need to be a tightening of the laws regarding what is socially acceptable. If a nation wants to win, it should start looking like a nation of winners. Instead of minding over stupid student protest issues, we should show the terrorist what we're made off. If we put half as much effort into the Lions tests and focus on security and rebuilding our disgraceful police force, maybe we can get somewhere.

Speaking of the lions test, it's 21-0 to the ABs just past half-time. W00T!

this time they snuck up on the guys and arrestetd them for no reason, while tey were dressed as muslim clerics.

it is racism.

and they were not USING live ammo, but they CARRY 1 clip each of live ammo jsut in case.

What do you think costumes are for? When the time and situation is right, costumes enhance the mood of exercise. Is there a distinction of clothing between a regular cleric and some bin Laden clone? If you're on exercise against another team, wouldn't the opposing team have different uniforms (in color at least) to your team's? All exercises must be treated seriously, if the bomb squad's on exercise, would they not turn up in full gear (all 40kgs on hand per person)?

Do you not know the psyche of the soldier? In the chain of command, somethings are too sensitive to be known. For example in this situation to nature of intel. regarding his arrests are highly sensitive. E.g. He's hidden an A-bomb somewhere in the country. Now if you tell another person, ten other people will be knowing about it. So the secret must be safe with the superiors. The task force in the field may not react calmly to the background information and somehow, on member in anger shoots the suspect and the location and specifications of the nuke is lost. We'll be so f*cked that "f*ck" shall be taught in preschool for rememberance! Nobody's got a 'Shut the f*ck up' switch, an operation must no have loose ends regarding intelligence.

Even if the arrest is wrongful, do not forget that the blame lies in the chain of command, so the soldier's simply doing his duty and there's nothing wrong about it. In the cold war, I'm sure the guy playing the suspect would have a red armband, a bunker full of AKs and a fake Russian accent. Now is that racism? How's flushing out a commie terrorist cell different to that of cleaning up an al Queda one?

Remember, 'PC' means personal computer, not 'political correctness'.

http://0cents.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Mousepad_Gun_Control_Means_Hitting_Your_Target.jpg


Right, got any more stupid questions? I'm feeling like the spokesman for the NZDF now.

Speaking of the lions test, it's 21-0 to the ABs just past half-time. W00T!

God Defend New Zealand! I don't have Sky TV, so I was planning to go down to my local pub and watch it there, but looks like playing Generals is more important. Bring on the F/A-22s!

We must have the strongest team in decades. Now if the World Cup's tomorrow, it'll be AB victory, no doubt.

Looks like nobody's gonna post much here since it's a partying weekend with all the rugby.

Looks like nobody's gonna post much here since it's a partying weekend with all the rugby.
I watched on Sky and would just like to say we are a bunch of filthy cheaters.

Muliiaina potentially took out BOD in the first minute dislocating his Shoulder.
Umanga foot tripped Lewsey or Robinson
Soiaoalo was giving a guy a bit of forearm to throat.

For shame!

Free tade deal with the U.S.? Australia got there first and planted their flag on it. Right now, we should consider not screwing that up with Chile or China if we're to get even.

Well, Australians whine about the deal they got; the problem with Australia is that they weren't willing to make many of the reforms we already have; for example, they were unwilling to allow a competitive postal service like we allow in NZ (although no one competes with NZ Post, nothing is stopping anyone from setting up one); another request was to remove the quotas on local content; they didn't want to do that either; there was a laundry list of demands by the US, which were quite reasonable - hence the reason, for example, quotas on beef exports to the US will be phased out over 20 years, and certain exports don't have complete access.

The goddamn embargoes not only starved and diseased many Iraqis, it also gave Saddam the sort of anti-Western sentiment he needed. If the UN wasn't as sloppy the first time round, they would have gotten rid of the bastard and there'd be peace in Iraq now. The UN forces were so close as they've alrady incited a major Shi'ite uprising, thinking that they would work it out for themselves, but Saddam's forces regrouped (this was T-72s vs. men with stolen AKs) and a massacre resulted.

Clinton had sh*t luck trying to have him overthrown in '96 but Saddam's forces got there first and captured even the CIA's comms. equipment, cursing back at the Americans. Many anti-Saddam commanders were compromised and executed and CIA agents barely managed to save their own asses.

This leaves Bush Jr. to drool over the oil field while pretending to be the 'good guy' and divert the public attention to the fact that bin Laden is still at large. The war's putting a spin on the oil prices and I'm forced to have my wallet drained at the fuel pumps.

Yeap, but America loves drama, and loves to have a 'strong leader', even if the leader isn't actually sucessful.

Its like Helen and her dream that she is seen as a strong leader, when actual fact, she is nothing more than a person would rather send NZ down the shitter than admit she made a major mistake.

Vigilance is the price of nationhood, so there need to be a tightening of the laws regarding what is socially acceptable. If a nation wants to win, it should start looking like a nation of winners. Instead of minding over stupid student protest issues, we should show the terrorist what we're made off. If we put half as much effort into the Lions tests and focus on security and rebuilding our disgraceful police force, maybe we can get somewhere.

Better yet, how about a police force that actually SOLVES crime rather than worrying about Pete the labourer who is going 6km over the speed limit!

Someone should introduce these police to WHY they're employed - to solve REAL crimes.

I watched on Sky and would just like to say we are a bunch of filthy cheaters.

Muliiaina potentially took out BOD in the first minute dislocating his Shoulder.
Umanga foot tripped Lewsey or Robinson
Soiaoalo was giving a guy a bit of forearm to throat.

For shame!

In the end, the All Blacks didn't win the game. The Lions lost it. Their line-out was a complete mess and their backline made some horrible kicking decisions.

The Lions are really actually pussies...

In the end, the All Blacks didn't win the game. The Lions lost it. Their line-out was a complete mess and their backline made some horrible kicking decisions.

Dammit! I missed that game. Come to think of it, I should have gone to the pub and watched it there. Well, a win is a win.

The Lions are really actually pussies...

Just like what that billboard reads.

I watched on Sky and would just like to say we are a bunch of filthy cheaters.

Muliiaina potentially took out BOD in the first minute dislocating his Shoulder.
Umanga foot tripped Lewsey or Robinson
Soiaoalo was giving a guy a bit of forearm to throat.

For shame!

Was that what they were trained for?

Better yet, how about a police force that actually SOLVES crime rather than worrying about Pete the labourer who is going 6km over the speed limit!

Someone should introduce these police to WHY they're employed - to solve REAL crimes.

If they need to crackdown on speeding then build more speed cameras, but the manpower of the police force should be there to protect the community and solve crimes. At least the arrest of that man who shot the dairy owner came quick, but Iraena Asher will continue to haunt them. (Our Missing Persons unit consist of less than 10 full time officers.)

Its like Helen and her dream that she is seen as a strong leader, when actual fact, she is nothing more than a person would rather send NZ down the shitter than admit she made a major mistake.

i think thats muldoon your talknig about here

Somebody told me that the Maori Party may get 7 seats on 2% of the party vote. Back pocket support for Aunty Helen?

One Maori vote = Two non-Maori votes

I watched on Sky and would just like to say we are a bunch of filthy cheaters.

Muliiaina potentially took out BOD in the first minute dislocating his Shoulder.
Umanga foot tripped Lewsey or Robinson
Soiaoalo was giving a guy a bit of forearm to throat.

For shame!



I do suspect you may be a one-eyed Pommy bastard claiming to be kiwi. Every true NZer knows that Mils Muiliana never commited such foul play.

Muliiaina took the field with 7 minutes to go, so how he could snuck on and clobbered BOD in the first minute - only God knows.

One Maori vote = Two non-Maori votes

Only because they can use it stategically, ie. split vote Labour for party & Maori for electorate.

Potentially the same can be done by non-Maori, it just won't is all.

I do suspect you may be a one-eyed Pommy bastard claiming to be kiwi. Every true NZer knows that Mils Muiliana never commited such foul play.

Muliiaina took the field with 7 minutes to go, so how he could snuck on and clobbered BOD in the first minute - only God knows.
Did i say him :eek: in any case obivuosly i didnt see it it was off camera but i must be talking of Mealamu but now ive heard it was a spear tackle!

In any casy i dont like the way the AB's played.

NZ politics, could there possibly b anything more dull?
Is it true Helen Clarke is a bull dyke lesbian? lol she sure as hell looks like it. :p

i think thats muldoon your talknig about here

Muldoon had visions of making our country great (through industrialization initiatives). Clarke f*cks us like a dildo.

NZ politics, could there possibly b anything more dull?
Is it true Helen Clarke is a bull dyke lesbian? lol she sure as hell looks like it. :p

NZ politics is only interesting to Kiwis. Yes, I suspect that she's a dyke. Despite having married for years, she has no children. She was also very vocal in the ideal of legalizing gay marriage, firstly by introducing 'civil unions' (legitimized bastard production scheme).

One Maori vote = Two non-Maori votes

Very true, my friend. And they tell us that's "democractic".

The Maori seats were only useful back in the days when they were underclothed, illiterate forest dwellers. It helped the government at the time to promote democracy and prevent political alienation amongst Maori. These days, it was never a permanent feature.

Did i say him :eek: in any case obivuosly i didnt see it it was off camera but i must be talking of Mealamu but now ive heard it was a spear tackle!

In any casy i dont like the way the AB's played.

I think we're a little off topic. Let's get back to the politics:

Death to the commies!

I think we're a little off topic. Let's get back to the politics:

Death to the commies!
I agree but ill keep it on sport.

Cricket
Heres a wise move from Our Glorious leader and her henchmen

Tell Zimbabwe they arent welcome before we tour.
Our guys go over there and get taken hostage-nice
And of course well have a British Diplomat tryingto sort it out like with that deranged Merc in the congo our where ever.

No way, Muldoon is like Winston Peters mixed with Helen Clark!

NZ politics is only interesting to Kiwis. Yes, I suspect that she's a dyke. Despite having married for years, she has no children. She was also very vocal in the ideal of legalizing gay marriage, firstly by introducing 'civil unions' (legitimized bastard production scheme).

I think shes a Satanist too.

I think shes a Satanist too.

Her lack of moral consideration when drafting the civil union act was evident.

I disagree with touring Zimbabwe. In fact, if the Commonwealth was more decisive, that country would have been expelled and full sanctions in place. If Uncle Sam truly cares for freedom and democracy, why not take out Mugabe? Oh, that's right! That place ain't got oil.

Do cricketers have such low knowledge of world geography? There are other locations that play cricket other than Zimbabwe. Have they toured the West Indies?

It was utterly foolish for the government to speak about preventing a reciprocating tour by Zimbabwe, while our team's ready to tour that country. This is another example of the high level of transparency in our foreign affairs, much like the case of Ahmed Zaoui. Now if they kept the lid shut on it and flew him home, the media won't have a field day over it!

I did 'Test the Nation' last night and I got 65. Anyone else did the challenge? The average for my age group (under 20) was 53, seeing that the questions had nostalgia bias. I did very well in the history and politics sections.

I just hope that Labour get back in with a clear majorty. A repeat of the fiasco that was National/New Zealand first would be horrid to have to go through again, but New Zealanders appear to have very short memories when it comes to such things.

It's interesting that the NZ Herald is all of a sudden laying thick the anti-governement rhetoric, but then again it's always been rather right wing. You just have to look at the amount of publicity that the NZ Media give to parties like ACT and the comparative small amount that they give to parties like the Greens even though they preform better in the polls. All a bit sad really but it shows that money might not be able to buy happiness but it can certainly buy elections and influence.

I just hope that Labour get back in with a clear majorty. A repeat of the fiasco that was National/New Zealand first would be horrid to have to go through again, but New Zealanders appear to have very short memories when it comes to such things.

It's interesting that the NZ Herald is all of a sudden laying thick the anti-governement rhetoric, but then again it's always been rather right wing. You just have to look at the amount of publicity that the NZ Media give to parties like ACT and the comparative small amount that they give to parties like the Greens even though they preform better in the polls. All a bit sad really but it shows that money might not be able to buy happiness but it can certainly buy elections and influence.

What are you talking about? This fiasco has more problems then the last National government (please note that I did not denote NZ First as Peters was later sacked). Labour has done nothing to alleviate our country off its problems. It has instead focussed on unimportant issues that create friction in society, such as foreshore and seabed and civil unions.

About the Herald, that paper is rather left wing (take a look at the opinions page), Sunday Star Times is the only right winged paper. The Green won't get any limelight because their radical policies are getting old (it's all the same with 'environmental protection' and legalize cannibis, there's just no variety). ACT is seen as a more extreme variant of National when it comes to policy. ACT holds higher profile because at least their MPs look like MPs.

Now that Labour is not doing well in the polls, the media is having a field day over the government's ills. If this is a National government and it is struggling, the media would also swarm around it like flies to manure. Bad news sells.

It has instead focussed on unimportant issues that create friction in society, such as foreshore and seabed and civil unions.

No, like any political party no matter what their leaning what they've been focussed on is Education and Health and Economy and the other bread and butter things that keeps a country going. What the media has been focussed on are the things you describe because it sells papers and makes ratings and gets all the racists and homophobes in a flutter, because it creates fear from ignorance and fear sells.

The Herald is not left wing and never has been. You only need to look at the editorials and the slanged reporting to see that.

People could easily argue that the ACT party is just as radical as the Greens but on the other side of the spectrum. And it's sad when just because someone is wearing a suit that it gives their opinions any more validity or access to air time to promote them.

Now that it's the election year the Herald and it's ilk takes the gloves off and goes in for the kill. Funnily enough an exact replication of last time around.

Attn. _Taiwan:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the newly elected president of Iran kinda looks like one of our lecturers with a beard.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Ahmadinezhad.jpg http://www.engineers.auckland.ac.nz/~hmor006/Personal_Web_Page.htmhttp://www.cee.auckland.ac.nz/i/content/staff_photos/academic_staff/staffphoto_acad_17.jpg

People could easily argue that the ACT party is just as radical as the Greens but on the other side of the spectrum. And it's sad when just because someone is wearing a suit that it gives their opinions any more validity or access to air time to promote them.

Now that it's the election year the Herald and it's ilk takes the gloves off and goes in for the kill. Funnily enough an exact replication of last time around.

The Greens are enviro-communists. Are you calling ACT a bunch of fascists? ACt believes in 'personal freedoms', which fascists do not adhere to. They have an economic policy that's more capitalistic than Labour and that labels them fascists? Wearing a suit does give someone more validity. Would you rather trust a politician who dresses like a professional or someone who looks like a beggar with dreadlocks? In places like Africa or the Middle East, traditional clothing of those who are professional or intellectual as well as suits command respect.

If you think the Herald is biased then you should try reading some government propaganda from a truly dictatorial regime! You callin' the Herald biased, have you read the Pyongyang Times? At least the papers here report of all sorts of news.

I just hope that Labour get back in with a clear majorty. A repeat of the fiasco that was National/New Zealand first would be horrid to have to go through again, but New Zealanders appear to have very short memories when it comes to such things.

It's interesting that the NZ Herald is all of a sudden laying thick the anti-governement rhetoric, but then again it's always been rather right wing. You just have to look at the amount of publicity that the NZ Media give to parties like ACT and the comparative small amount that they give to parties like the Greens even though they preform better in the polls. All a bit sad really but it shows that money might not be able to buy happiness but it can certainly buy elections and influence.

If National-NZF was bad, then Labour-NZF will never work. I can't even imagine the Greens talking with Winston. Winston Peters has no real platforms, hence in government he has no real policies and is better in opposition than government. But face it, Winston will get his 8-12% and be kingmaker again. *sigh* The only publicity ACT has been getting is "Slump. Fall in Polls. Struggling. 2%."

You're right, other than their struggle in the polls (which was obvious and reported by other sources), another facet of publicity they got was the Coddington affair. LOL!

This guy looks like Ahmed Zaoui!!!

http://www.dragunov.net/svdaction/240804ww1,0.jpg

That photograph was of that of an Iraqi insurgent.

Animals are Subhuman!

I went to Auckland Zoo with _Taiwan and some of his mates. We spent nearly 6 hours there, looking at the different animals. As soon as one is in the proximity of the cages, the smell hits you like the sewers.

Although female members of our group found the various animals "cute", I was there to laugh at them in their confinement. I have never viewed an animal as an equal to humans.

What was the most inferior of their behaviours was observed between two chimps. One chimp repeatedly licked another's arse, then licked his lips! I conclude that animals are inferior to us, if otherwise, Man would be in those cages living for their pleasure.

If animals deserve 'rights', like how some bestial bastards like to put it, we'll be the ones suffering!

I've been asked if I was a member of the National Party.

"If they issue armbands to members, I'd join!" I replied.

i think thats muldoon your talknig about here

NCEA, knew it was going to be a failure before it was implemented, and yet, it was implemented.

Single WINZ benefit; told by WINZ and a number of independent advisors that it would cost more to administrate and would be a complete debacle, and yet, they're still pushing forward with it.

Labour, the party of bad ideas and National, the party of no-ideas, combine the two, and you end up with with *really crappie* ideas.

If they need to crackdown on speeding then build more speed cameras, but the manpower of the police force should be there to protect the community and solve crimes. At least the arrest of that man who shot the dairy owner came quick, but Iraena Asher will continue to haunt them. (Our Missing Persons unit consist of less than 10 full time officers.)

Bugger speed cameras; people who get into accidents fall into into either or both catagory - drunk/intoxicated or bloody idiots who don't know the road rules.

One or the other, or worse, the two at the same time, and you'll have a crash. Speed isn't what kills, crappy driving and being over the limit.

As for the justice system, give me the good old Dutch system of three judges rather than the fannying about with the jury - 12 idiots lined up who would rather not be there; once sentenced, they go to the Hilton for 3 years for 'punishment' when what it should be is hell on earth.

I did 'Test the Nation' last night and I got 65. Anyone else did the challenge? The average for my age group (under 20) was 53, seeing that the questions had nostalgia bias. I did very well in the history and politics sections.
i did it got 90% on the tv and 82% on the Interweb
I stuffed up two questions on the web though i knew the answer and didnt answer 2 as i got distracted.

But i was running at 18 and 19 after the first two blocks of questions and choked on the last 2.

Freyberg!

Bugger speed cameras; people who get into accidents fall into into either or both catagory - drunk/intoxicated or bloody idiots who don't know the road rules.

One or the other, or worse, the two at the same time, and you'll have a crash. Speed isn't what kills, crappy driving and being over the limit.

As for the justice system, give me the good old Dutch system of three judges rather than the fannying about with the jury - 12 idiots lined up who would rather not be there; once sentenced, they go to the Hilton for 3 years for 'punishment' when what it should be is hell on earth.

Speed camera monitor speed. Those caught would be fined, as a simple punishment to prevent reoffending. Policemen have more important tasks than acting as human variants of some automated system. Often speed is a major factor in crash, higher speeds mean less control. Apart from that, it's good ol' ethanol. Ya see, that's why lawyers are so profitable in the West- White people drink and drive. LOL!

Scrap the jury system! It puts people out off their work, so instead of working for the country and strengthening the economy, they have to listen to boring deliberations, participate in an endless argument and face threats to the lives of themselves and their families when they have someone convicted. Even in some U.S. states they have to reinstate public humiliation. Why? Because it bloody works!

If all evidence points to the fact that the criminal is guilty, should he need defense? Bring on the show trials!

Since you're gay, wouldn't prison be like some homosexual brothel to you? LOL! There's too few prisons and far too few corrections officers. We should reinstate forced labor so that it also saves costs and contribute slightly to the economy.

Labour, the party of bad ideas and National, the party of no-ideas, combine the two, and you end up with with *really crappie* ideas.

What about your Libertarian Party? If National takes an even tougher stance against the Left, the criminals and degenerates, you'd see me in their rallies, I mean conferences.

*Holding back the urge to shoot a Nazi salute jokingly and sniggering at the same moment.*

i did it got 90% on the tv and 82% on the Interweb
I stuffed up two questions on the web though i knew the answer and didnt answer 2 as i got distracted.

But i was running at 18 and 19 after the first two blocks of questions and choked on the last 2.

Freyberg!

I wouldn't know crap about '80s television and Kiwi music since I've only been a Kiwi for a decade.

Ah yes, it's funny how at times of trouble, we never look up to our national heroes like Freyberg, Upham, Hillary and Rutherford. Where's the patriotism? We need to erect statues of these men!

Wow! Nobody has anything to say about the Zaoui lookalike? LOL!

What about your Libertarian Party? If National takes an even tougher stance against the Left, the criminals and degenerates, you'd see me in their rallies, I mean conferences.

*Holding back the urge to shoot a Nazi salute jokingly and sniggering at the same moment.*

lol, I'm training to become a nurse, and then I'm out of this shit hole.

Paid Maternity leave, child payments via social welfare, accomodation suppliment, "Ministry of Womens Affairs" - need one go on and one about the socialist shit that Labour, National and all the other major parties have put this country through.

We could have the *BEST* health care system in the world given the massive amounts of funding it receives, but rather than run the hospitals in a lean, mean fashion, they have consultants, papers shufflers and managers up the wazoo. Get rid of the paper shufflers and space wasters, and get the doctors and nurses to run the hospital, like it was in the 1950s, like when we didn't have a layer of beaucracy that strangled the the country like an out of control cancer.

Isn't nursing meant to be a female profession?

I'll reply later. Auschwitz: The Nazis the 'Final Solution' is on!

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvone_story_skin/567160%3fformat=html

Sino... stop...

Nursing is a female Perfesion and should only be done by the religously inclined.

Just like in Harlesburg all Women shoud be..
Bare foot ,Pregnant and greatful!

Isn't nursing meant to be a female profession?

Hmm, and this is coming from a young whipper-snapper, under the age of 20, and thinks the whole world revolves around himself.

Hmm, Sino is living proof that capital punishment should only be bought back into schools, but encouraged to be used at every possible occasion.

Sino... stop...

Stop what?

Hmm, and this is coming from a young whipper-snapper, under the age of 20, and thinks the whole world revolves around himself.

Hmm, Sino is living proof that capital punishment should only be bought back into schools, but encouraged to be used at every possible occasion.

How does a comment concerning a female profession will label me as a close-minded egomaniac. I'm certainly not self-centered.

Capital punishment should be reserved for society's worst and re-offenders. Corporal punishment should be used in law enforcement and in schools. Bring back the cane! Capital punishment will surely drive our murder rates down as blood washes blood.

Nursing is a female Perfesion and should only be done by the religously inclined.

Just like in Harlesburg all Women shoud be..
Bare foot ,Pregnant and greatful!

I don't understand your sense of humor.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9192125#post9192125

Somebody else is discussing our Kyoto liabilities. LOL!

This is looking pretty close. It will be interesting to see what National's got in store tomorrow.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/wp-content/0800donbrash.mp3

Personally I find Brash's notion that anyone earning under 55 thousand dollars a year is not hardworking to be an extraordinary insult. I work hard at my uni studies, I work hard to raise my partner's child (from a former marraige) and I work hard at my part time job.

Meanwhile no interest on my student loan in return for staying in NZ, paying taxes and adding my skills to the labour market pool sounds darn good. So does tax credits where they are most needed. More impact for less costs...

Not to mention the fact that last time the Nats got let loose in an MMP environment they totally destabilised the government. More Winston Peters and Allamein (spelling?) Kopu antics, we do not need.

Labour provides a very 'centre' type governance. I certainly dont approve of a lot of what they do, but when I consider the alternatives....

I don't understand your sense of humor.
Humour? :rolleyes:




Nice to see you JRV. ;)

There's too few prisons and far too few corrections officers. We should reinstate forced labor so that it also saves costs and contribute slightly to the economy.
should prisoners be working if it creates an output that competes with the private sector?

Well, after some deliberation...

Party Vote : Destiny
Candidate Vote (Northcote) : National

should prisoners be working if it creates an output that competes with the private sector?
Absolutely not. Why should some hard working family lose their family business because they cannot compete with slave labour?

If there are too many crimes happening, then instead of incarcerating people at ever greater rates, we should be preventing crimes. The NZ justice system is long overdue for a 'fix up'. There is so much wrong with it, and really very little right.

Well, after some deliberation...

Party Vote : Destiny
Candidate Vote (Northcote) : National
how do you justify giving your party vote to a "church" that wants to try impose their own ignorant beliefs on people that aren't from within their organisation via politics?

how do you justify giving your party vote to a "church" that wants to try impose their own ignorant beliefs on people that aren't from within their organisation via politics?
Not wanting to offend anyone by stating the obvious, but I suspect because Taiwan wants to impose his or her own ignorant beliefs on people that dont personally hold whatever those beliefs are.

That's my guess anyhow.

Holy crap this is a long thread, so Im not going to read all of it. Im from Nelson, but Im only 17 so I cant vote, but if I could, I would try and keep Aunty Helen in. She seems to be doing quite a good job.

Not wanting to offend anyone by stating the obvious, but I suspect because Taiwan wants to impose his or her own ignorant beliefs on people that dont personally hold whatever those beliefs are.

That's my guess anyhow.

Typical Liberal (in the sense of ACT or the Greens) thinking/flaming. Everything apart from their own beliefs are ignorant/ intolerant/bigoted/insensitive, etc. "A destiny voter is always an extremist/fundamentalist/idiot who wants to force their will on others and gangpress them into the church or has been brainwashed."

I'm voting Destiny for these reasons :

*Originally, I was planning to give the party vote to United, but their merger with the smoking party goes against the "Families and Common Sense" rant that they've promoted consistently. Smoking kills. It kills family members. See the logic? They also supported the hate speech bill.

*Labour pushing through the prostitution reform act, against public opinion, and Helen Clark's arm-bending of party members in what was a "conscience vote". Also their anti-smacking amendment and hate speech bill.

*I'm not supportive of their rallies against homosexuality, but with most of the parties in parliament being socially liberal (even National), someone needs to represent the conservative spectrum.

Hence, my vote for Destiny can be considered a sort of "protest vote". Answer your query?

(Other thoughts: National really blew it this campaign badly.)

how do you justify giving your party vote to a "church" that wants to try impose their own ignorant beliefs on people that aren't from within their organisation via politics?
That's democracy. A parties views and policies can come from any source and if they reflect what voters want they win, if not they don't. So who cares how screwy parties are, if people arn't they won't get in.
Not saying the party is screwy as I am ignorant of NZ politics.

That's democracy. A parties views and policies can come from any source and if they reflect what voters want they win, if not they don't. So who cares how screwy parties are, if people arn't they won't get in.
Not saying the party is screwy as I am ignorant of NZ politics.

They sure are screwy. Their response to the London bombings was to announce that the government was committing acts of terrorism against the family. I have nothing against nuclear fimilies, I'm from one, but I hardly need to be rewarded for this. But they won't be in Parliament so it doesn't really matter.

I'm personally hoping for a Labour/Greens coalition, I have a scary student loan and would rather only pay it off once...

Typical Liberal (in the sense of ACT or the Greens) thinking/flaming.
Liberal in the sense of ACT, is entirely different to liberal in the sense of the Greens.
Everything apart from their own beliefs are ignorant/ intolerant/bigoted/insensitive, etc.
You seem to be confusing 'following of form' for value judgement imput. I simply mirrored the words already used. Simply following form. The poster I replied to has formed their view (on the opinions held by Destiny Church), and I simply replied in the terminology they had employed. The actual part of my comment that deals with my own opinion is that the reason a person would vote for a party that wants to force it's opinions onto others, is because they too wish to force their opinion onto others.

"A destiny voter is always an extremist/fundamentalist/idiot who wants to force their will on others and gangpress them into the church or has been brainwashed."
Well from my point of view someone who would vote for Destiny Church is either not fully cognisent of what they are doing, or is an extremist. If they dont want to gangpress us into the church, then they themselves are failing to meet the church standards as they presented in Destiny Church broadcasts.

I'm voting Destiny for these reasons :

*Originally, I was planning to give the party vote to United, but their merger with the smoking party goes against the "Families and Common Sense" rant that they've promoted consistently. Smoking kills. It kills family members. See the logic? They also supported the hate speech bill.
What smoking party?

*Labour pushing through the prostitution reform act, against public opinion, and Helen Clark's arm-bending of party members in what was a "conscience vote".
Which really only proves that indeed you do wish to force your views onto others.

Also their anti-smacking amendment and hate speech bill.
There has not been an anti-smacking amendment passed, however there clearly ought to be some clarification of the law in this regard. The fact is judges apply the standard in a way that is inconsistent with each other, and that in itself is inconsistent with a core principle of New Zealand law.

*I'm not supportive of their rallies against homosexuality, but with most of the parties in parliament being socially liberal (even National), someone needs to represent the conservative spectrum.
The conservative spectrum are represented in a variety of ways. Destiny Church did not hold rallies just to be represented. They held rallies with the hope and intention causing their views about homosexuality to have a direct material impact on the lives of others who do not share those views.

Hence, my vote for Destiny can be considered a sort of "protest vote". Answer your query?
It was not my queries. However yes, your response does indicate that I was correct in believing you are voting for Destiny Church because you wish to control the lives of those who do not share certain of your views.

(Other thoughts: National really blew it this campaign badly.)
Their juvenile campaign, even if it were not so hypocritical, suggests that if New Zealanders are not for the most part idiots, National has clearly failed to realise it.

The reason a person would vote for a party that wants to force it's opinions onto others, is because they too wish to force their opinion onto others.

Every political party wants to force their views on others, for example the Greens are trying to force Aucklanders to use public transport by cancelling road funding. Or what about Labour proposing legislation forcing new teachers to learn Maori pronounciation?

*Labour pushing through the prostitution reform act, against public opinion, and Helen Clark's arm-bending of party members in what was a "conscience vote".

Which really only proves that indeed you do wish to force your views onto others. [/quote]

How is condemnation of Clark's bullying tactics against her cabinet ministers (Choudry, who went from against to abstain) supposed to "prove that I do wish to force your views onto others"?

BTW The smoking party is called WIN, started by the first pub owner to be sued for smoking.

There has not been an anti-smacking amendment passed, however there clearly ought to be some clarification of the law in this regard. The fact is judges apply the standard in a way that is inconsistent with each other, and that in itself is inconsistent with a core principle of New Zealand law.

Ahem, to clarify, a proposed amendment of the Crimes act to make smacking legally an assault (From a statement from the police)

They held rallies with the hope and intention causing their views about homosexuality to have a direct material impact on the lives of others who do not share those views.

Please explain what you mean by "direct material impact".

Every political party wants to force their views on others, for example the Greens are trying to force Aucklanders to use public transport by cancelling road funding. Or what about Labour proposing legislation forcing new teachers to learn Maori pronounciation?
That is not a matter of forcing views. It is a matter of deciding on what is necessary to solve problems. There is a vast difference between saying 'there is a lot of pollution that is causing damage, let us encourage people to not pollute', and 'I think homosexuality is bad, therefore I have the right to stop other people from getting married'. One is attempting to address a tangible problem, the other is trying to force other people to act in accord with ideas and notions that cannot be objectively shown to be correct.

How is condemnation of Clark's bullying tactics against her cabinet ministers (Choudry, who went from against to abstain) supposed to "prove that I do wish to force your views onto others"?
I did not suggest that was forcing your veiws onto others. The fact that you would support a policy or law simply because it was popular (or at least that is what you comments appeared to imply to me) is simply forcing views onto others.

BTW The smoking party is called WIN, started by the first pub owner to be sued for smoking.
Never even heard of it...


Ahem, to clarify, a proposed amendment of the Crimes act to make smacking legally an assault (From a statement from the police)
Aha, well it hasnt passed, and in my opinion it is not a desirable ammendment, it would be preferable to simply clarify the currently ambiguous legislation (that allows reasonable force) to make clear the difference between reasonable force and child-bashing.


Please explain what you mean by "direct material impact".
I mean directly effecting your ability to not be coerced into action or inaction, or needlessly prevented (due to some legislation, regulation etc, or lack there of) from doing your own thing.

Yay! I got on tv shaking Don Brash's hand.

Humour? :rolleyes:




Nice to see you JRV. ;)

Did you see Jade in that last issue of FHM? :)

Yay! I got on tv shaking Don Brash's hand.

I thought you looked familiar... ;) :D

...with most of the parties in parliament being socially liberal (even National), someone needs to represent the conservative spectrum.

Personally I'm just glad the this kind of social conservativism has been relegated to the fringe parties. Seems most of the population feels the same way.

Personally I'm just glad the this kind of social conservativism has been relegated to the fringe parties. Seems most of the population feels the same way.

Indeed. We're a liberal people, and that's a good thing.



Go National!

Whooooooo, got to do my bit for democracy.





I'm generally liberal or 'left' so you can probably guess the parties I chose between. That, and I don't like Brash at all, so work it out :p

I heard New Zealand was gonna repeal its strict anti-nuclear laws, possibly leading to its readmission into ANZUS and a free trade deal with the US. Is this true?

I heard New Zealand was gonna repeal its strict anti-nuclear laws, possibly leading to its readmission into ANZUS and a free trade deal with the US. Is this true?

Ah yes, the famous 'Gone by lunchtime' line.

I don't think that will happen for a while. Most polls on the issue have staying nuclear free well ahead, so I don't think it would get through the system to change the law.

Wow. A light plane just crashed not far from Don Brash's home, apparently it was stolen and the pilot made unspecified threats.

Whooooooo, got to do my bit for democracy.





I'm generally liberal or 'left' so you can probably guess the parties I chose between. That, and I don't like Brash at all, so work it out :p
Destiny NZ, by any chance?
Remember a vote for Destiny NZ is a vote for every party!

Destiny NZ, by any chance?
Remember a vote for Destiny NZ is a vote for every party!

Haha.

Looks like it's a tie...

Wow. A light plane just crashed not far from Don Brash's home, apparently it was stolen and the pilot made unspecified threats.
It crashed into the Waitemata harbour off St Heliers beach. Apparently the pilot was in contact with the police and had threatened to crash it into the Sky Tower.
So connection at all to Don Brash, except maybe the hot air emanating from his house caused vector currents and shearing which caused the plane to crash.

Haha.

Looks like it's a tie...
Certainly bloody close. Labour just edges ahead for the first time since polls closed.
Whatever happens, I hope NZFirst don't hold the balance of power again. They certainly totally screwed up NZ back in '96.
It's looking like a Labour-Greens-Jim Anderton-Maori coalition. Don't know if that'll be very good. But better than a National-NZFirst-Act-United coalition. That'll be more likely to implode and screw NZ up.

Destiny NZ, by any chance?
Remember a vote for Destiny NZ is a vote for every party!

Nope, I split green/labour, although I did take into serious consideration the 99 MP party. I think they're a great group of up and comers. :p


The way its looking though, Nandor will just miss out on a seat. I thought it was great having an MP with dreadlocks who caught the bus to work, and occasionally skateboarded to work on nice days :D

Its really close aye, Labour justtttttttttttttttt leading, i hope they win..lol

Interesting, I see that there's no real close seats this election:
http://www.electionresults.org.nz/electoratestatus.html

Other than Otaki (Lab by 226 votes). A pretty polarising election this time round by the looks.


Party vote was for Labour btw. Ummed and erred between them and Greens, but I thought Greens mightn't reach the 5% threshold so went for Labour in the end. Greens just over, so it's a fairly close thing. I think a lot people were like me and went for Labour over Greens cause of uncertainty over Greens ability to break 5% (I know a couple of mates who did the same). Polls definitely do dictate matters.
Real shame is that Hide got in. I was really hoping to have seen the last of ACT. Another unfortunate was Jim Anderton's party is about 400 votes off getting another seat. I should have voted for them, dammit!

Interesting, I see that there's no real close seats this election:
http://www.electionresults.org.nz/electoratestatus.html

Other than Otaki (Lab by 226 votes). A pretty polarising election this time round by the looks.


Party vote was for Labour btw. Ummed and erred between them and Greens, but I thought Greens mightn't reach the 5% threshold so went for Labour in the end. Greens just over, so it's a fairly close thing. I think a lot people were like me and went for Labour over Greens cause of uncertainty over Greens ability to break 5% (I know a couple of mates who did the same). Polls definitely do dictate matters.
Real shame is that Hide got in. I was really hoping to have seen the last of ACT. Another unfortunate was Jim Anderton's party is about 400 votes off getting another seat. I should have voted for them, dammit!

I voted green BECAUSE I was worried they might fall below 5%. I hoped enough other people would be too, and that they'd get bumped back up.

Well, I can't believe the Maori party are seriously considering having talks with the Nats to support their govt. I know there's a lot of bad blood between them and Labour but really.
Do they really think the Nats are going to help them any? For a start they want to get rid of the Maori seats altogether - thereby effectively wiping out the Maori party. Great logic - support the blokes who want to get rid of you. If they do go for the Nats, they deserve everything they get.

That was close election. Hopefully Labour gets back so John Howard can't bullying NZ into removing it's nuclear free status in behalf of his US boss.

PS - I live the King Johnny Land :D

wow, this thread has been going on for so long! Well done to the inital poster :) Iknow nothing about NZ politics. But I do want to go to the University of Canterbury to do a masters in International Law and International relations! So maybe I'll get involved in it then :)

wow, this thread has been going on for so long! Well done to the inital poster :) Iknow nothing about NZ politics. But I do want to go to the University of Canterbury to do a masters in International Law and International relations! So maybe I'll get involved in it then :)

http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html


How's that for close?


We use the MMP system though, so that doesn't mean labour will form a govt, although they are looking the most likely. Just.

http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html


How's that for close?


We use the MMP system though, so that doesn't mean labour will form a govt, although they are looking the most likely. Just.

Question - what's a "special vote"?

Question - what's a "special vote"?


They are anybody who for whatever reason can't get to a polling place on the day, or voted from outside of their electorate. Some of those people voted early, and those votes have already been counted. The votes from outside electorates and overseas and things haven't, and don't get finalised until the first of october.

Based on the last few elections, special votes favour the greens, act and to a slightly lesser extent national. The Greens managed to scrape into parliment on special votes in '99, and picked up an extra MP with them in '02. Labour droped something like .1 of a % after special votes were added in '02.

They are anybody who for whatever reason can't get to a polling place on the day, or voted from outside of their electorate. Some of those people voted early, and those votes have already been counted. The votes from outside electorates and overseas and things haven't, and don't get finalised until the first of october.

Based on the last few elections, special votes favour the greens, act and to a slightly lesser extent national. The Greens managed to scrape into parliment on special votes in '99, and picked up an extra MP with them in '02. Labour droped something like .1 of a % after special votes were added in '02.

Thanks. In Australia - it's called Postal Vote.

Shame that the Greens or Jim didn't get another seat or two. Then it would have been the same coalition as last time: Labour-Greens-Progressive-United. At the moment those 4 parties have 60 seats - 1 short. And that coalition worked pretty well last time.
I don't trust the Maori party. Turia is a fruitcake. Some of the things she's come out with over the years have been so screwed-up. Relying on her support makes for a shaky government.

I don't trust one word Peters says. He's come out against National and promised to support the party with the most seats, but then he's said all this crap before. He's an opportunist who'll jump in bed with whoever gives him the best deal. And really, most of his policies are closer to National than Labour.

So what'll it be?

Labour-Jim-Greens-Maori =61 seats
or
National-Act-NZFirst-United = 61 seats

LAbour probably looks more likely. They know they can rely on Greens & Jim, which means just negotiating with Maori and United (though United have said they won't support any Greens in cabinet, which throws a spanner in the works), both parties generally more likely to lean Labour's way.
Whereas National have to negotiate with Winston, which could really take a long time and definitely has the potential to be a total screw-up. Longer it takes, the more chance for Labour to sort itself out with Maori and have United onboard for confidence issues.

So I think a Labour third term most likely. Brash won't resign, like he said he would if they lost, because they've done so well and come so close this time round.

I voted green BECAUSE I was worried they might fall below 5%. I hoped enough other people would be too, and that they'd get bumped back up.
Me too! 2 terms of stable government and darn good economy; I figured if we wanted to retain a stable government and not have radical pro-nuclear racists influenced by shady religious cults lording it over us, labour would need a coalition partner...

Plus it's high time we stopped wasting resources on dope-smokers. It's nice and well to suggest that we save them from themselves by arresting them, fingerprinting them, giving them a criminal record that will interfere in their ability to earn a wage and be a productive member of society, before fining them a couple of hundred dollars they will pay off at 5 dollars a week for the next few years, but when it's at the expense of having enough resources to serve law abiding citizens when their lives are endangered by others....its past time for a change in policy.

Heck for the cost of prosecuting a single dope smoker for possesion of a single joint, we could have sent a crack team of highly specialised armed forces and a mobile medical unit out to rescue Ms Ashton. Next time someone is going to ruin their own health smoking a joint, I suggest we send them the taxi and keep the police force for what it should be used for; protecting citizens from dangers imposed on them by other citizens. :p

And what the heck was going on with that plane....? My friend was in the Sky Tower and I txted to let him know about the plane, he txt back that I was being silly because he didnt know anything about it. About 20 minutes after the plane crashed, he txted back to say that they were being evacuated from the Sky Tower...good one! :confused:

I'm just trying to decide who's uglier. Helen Clark or Angela Merkel. Anyone else find themselves in this predicament? :confused:

I'm just trying to decide who's uglier. Helen Clark or Angela Merkel. Anyone else find themselves in this predicament? :confused:
Not in the least, although this may be related to my not knowing who the heck Angela Merkel is.... ;)

That is not a matter of forcing views. It is a matter of deciding on what is necessary to solve problems. There is a vast difference between saying 'there is a lot of pollution that is causing damage, let us encourage people to not pollute', and 'I think homosexuality is bad, therefore I have the right to stop other people from getting married'. One is attempting to address a tangible problem, the other is trying to force other people to act in accord with ideas and notions that cannot be objectively shown to be correct.

source: http://www.greens.org.nz

"Stopping the sale of fizzy drinks, sugary drinks, lollies, and chippies on school property."

"Ensure violent programmes are scheduled for after 10 p.m. at night (and strictly enforce this through the Broadcasting Standards Authority)."

Unfortunatly it is a matter of forcing views, you just happen to agree with these views more.

source: http://www.greens.org.nz

"Stopping the sale of fizzy drinks, sugary drinks, lollies, and chippies on school property."
If the school in question is a state run school, then that is fine and well. I contend that private schools ought to be able to make the decision for themselves.

"Ensure violent programmes are scheduled for after 10 p.m. at night (and strictly enforce this through the Broadcasting Standards Authority)."
Again this is fine so long as it applies only to state run tv chanels, I dont think it is necessarily appropriate for private chanels, but I also dont think that it has much of a chance of getting through parliment.

Unfortunatly it is a matter of forcing views, you just happen to agree with these views more.
Actually I dont happen to whole-heartedly agree with the views you refer to, however there is a difference between these views which would not stop anyone from drinking fizzy drinks or viewing violent images should they choose to do so, and views that dictate whether or not two consenting adults may marry each other. One simply makes certain choices less convinient to realise, the other makes certain choices impossible.

Me too! 2 terms of stable government and darn good economy; I figured if we wanted to retain a stable government and not have radical pro-nuclear racists influenced by shady religious cults lording it over us, labour would need a coalition partner...

Don Brash is not racist. Didn't you know his wife is from Singapore? Seriously though, I can't see how saying that we should be one people could possibly be considered racist. It's anything but. Getting rid of the seperate Maori seats and wards is fine by me. Only 7 out of 19 odd Maori in the last parliament made it there because of those seats. Removing race based funding in health and education also makes sense.

And Brash has already said numerous times that he won't change the nuclear legislation without a public mandate.

Personally I think it will be sad indeed to see Labour returned to power. According to most commentators, the only reason our economy is doing okay today is because of the economic reforms of the '80s and early '90s. None the less, as Brash has argued, our living standards continue to be below those of Australia. Our growth rate in GDP per capita is only .8% while the average for other OECD countries is closer to 2%. Helen Clark says she wants to improve on this. Yet the number of people dependent on unemployment remains at 300 odd thousand, tax is disgustingly high for most income earners and there's little incintive to stay or work in this country.

And what the heck was going on with that plane....? My friend was in the Sky Tower and I txted to let him know about the plane, he txt back that I was being silly because he didnt know anything about it. About 20 minutes after the plane crashed, he txted back to say that they were being evacuated from the Sky Tower...good one! :confused:

Yeah. That's two major security scares we've had in less than a week. I wonder what stopped him from actually crashing into the Sky Tower, he came close enough.

Don Brash is not racist.
Well then if you prefer he just promotes racism for political gain...I'm not convinced that is actually better than simply being a racist...

Didn't you know his wife is from Singapore?
Yes I did know that. Did you know my mother was practicially married to a Maori/Chinese person for over a decade, has a Maori/Chinese daughter and yet is still racist....most particularly against Asians and Maoris...?

Seriously though, I can't see how saying that we should be one people could possibly be considered racist.
Well I didnt say that the reason I see Brash's behaviour as being racist is because he said we should be one. However I would contend that if by one you mean that everyone should be treated as though everyone were the same, and that the treatment everyone should get ought to be decided according to pakeha ideology, that this is at best ethnocentric in theory and probably in practise would equate to racist policies that are more divisive than uniting.

It's anything but. Getting rid of the seperate Maori seats and wards is fine by me.
Well getting rid of brussel sprouts is fine by me, however I recognise my interest isnt the only interest involved so I dont expect that my views on brussel sprouts should take precedence over the views of those who actually have a use for brussel sprouts....quite the opposite in fact.

Only 7 out of 19 odd Maori in the last parliament made it there because of those seats.
There was no dedicated party with any hope of representing Maori interests particularly (ie in preference to non-Maori interests) at the last election. MMP is still fairly new, but we are adjusting to it very well as a nation and I believe the results (in the Maori seats) from this election provide a good demonstration of this. I dont necessarily have the same needs as Maori, there will be times where my interests may conflict with those of Maori. I want the party I vote for to represent my interests, whilst I dont want to see any significant group within New Zealand not represented. The geographic dispersal of Maori, and the 5% threshold mean that the Maori seats provide for Maori representation without my representives having to ignore my interests where they conflict with Maori interests. With the 5% threshold, the Maori party would have no seats without those seats set aside for Maori voters. They would be relying on mainstream parties to represent Maori interests and this would mean that when Maori interests and non-Maori interests were contrary to each other, either non-Maori or Maori would be without representation. With the seats both Maori and non-Maori are represented, even if that representation doesnt result in their particular interests always being upheld.

Removing race based funding in health and education also makes sense.
What race based funding? So far as I know Maori have legitimate claims on needs based funding, at least if need means what I have always taken it to mean. If a particular group suffer particularly from something we as a society seek to prevent or mitigate, how does that not equal a need?

And Brash has already said numerous times that he won't change the nuclear legislation without a public mandate.
That doesnt change his view. The fact that he wont act on the view because it isnt politically pragmatic to do so, doesnt change the kind of thinking that led him to form the view in the first place.

Personally I think it will be sad indeed to see Labour returned to power.
I have no idea why. The only party to deliver stable government under MMP and evidently without sacrificing economic well-being.

According to most commentators, the only reason our economy is doing okay today is because of the economic reforms of the '80s and early '90s.
Right, and who started those reforms....the Labour party.

None the less, as Brash has argued, our living standards continue to be below those of Australia.
I disagree, as do all the NZ'ers I know who are planning to return from Australia or already have.

Our growth rate in GDP per capita is only .8% while the average for other OECD countries is closer to 2%. Helen Clark says she wants to improve on this. Yet the number of people dependent on unemployment remains at 300 odd thousand, tax is disgustingly high for most income earners and there's little incintive to stay or work in this country.
Actually our taxes are not high by international standards....evidently some of the highest taxes in the world also coincide with some of the best standards of living in the world...as for incentive to stay in the country, a lot of ex-students left because paying off student loans with the incredibly high interest is very hard, getting rid of the interest will give many such people a very good reason to stay. Unemployment is lower than when labour took government two terms ago, it is lower than under the last national government, and the national govenment before that and the national government before that. No point going back further because earlier than that the economic conditions were vastly different (we used to have preferential treatment in UK markets for our agricultural and farming exports).

Yeah. That's two major security scares we've had in less than a week. I wonder what stopped him from actually crashing into the Sky Tower, he came close enough.
Bad aim perhaps...(as in stupendously bad)... ;)

I have no idea 'what gives' (in regards to the plane or the Tauranga building), why would anyone want to fly a plane into the Sky Tower....the mind boggles... :confused:

Again this is fine so long as it applies only to state run tv chanels, I dont think it is necessarily appropriate for private chanels, but I also dont think that it has much of a chance of getting through parliment.

"Require the Broadcasting Standards Authority to monitor the amount of violence on all television channels through annual surveys and report the findings to Parliament each year."

"Require the Broadcasting Standards Authority to monitor and enforce the TV codes of broadcasting practice on the portrayal of violence, in particular the requirement that channels avoid screening programmes containing gratuitous violence (that which is not justified by the context)."

Nope they mean all tv chanels. And yes it wont get through parliment but the fact that they want to is important.

Actually I dont happen to whole-heartedly agree with the views you refer to, however there is a difference between these views which would not stop anyone from drinking fizzy drinks or viewing violent images should they choose to do so, and views that dictate whether or not two consenting adults may marry each other. One simply makes certain choices less convinient to realise, the other makes certain choices impossible.

Ok fair enough. I spent some more time looking through the greens policy and found some more interesting ones.

"Work towards a ban on GE food imports and, in the interim, improve the labelling requirements"

A ban on GE food imports. Say I particulaly like the taste of GE food? Nope they have decided they know better for me so I cant get it.

"Restrict land ownership to citizens and permanent residents living in NZ for at least half of each year"

I will no longer have the right to sell my land to whoever I want to.

"Require land use to better match land type."

Or decide what I want to do with it.

Well getting rid of brussel sprouts is fine by me, however I recognise my interest isnt the only interest involved so I dont expect that my views on brussel sprouts should take precedence over the views of those who actually have a use for brussel sprouts....quite the opposite in fact.

The maori seats aren't needed under MMP. If people are worried about maori issues they can vote for the maori party to represent them. I am roughly half maori and I hate the ideas of the maori seats. It is racial discrimination to have some seats reserved in parliment specificly for a single race.

Not in the least, although this may be related to my not knowing who the heck Angela Merkel is.... ;)

Angela Merkel is the chick running against Schroeder in Germany...

I have visited Canada once, I would like to visit Australia and New Zeeland, so its nice to know a little about thier politics, I love history, and geography and have read some on all these nations.

Shame that the Greens or Jim didn't get another seat or two. Then it would have been the same coalition as last time: Labour-Greens-Progressive-United. At the moment those 4 parties have 60 seats - 1 short. And that coalition worked pretty well last time.
I don't trust the Maori party. Turia is a fruitcake. Some of the things she's come out with over the years have been so screwed-up. Relying on her support makes for a shaky government.

I don't trust one word Peters says. He's come out against National and promised to support the party with the most seats, but then he's said all this crap before. He's an opportunist who'll jump in bed with whoever gives him the best deal. And really, most of his policies are closer to National than Labour.

So what'll it be?

Labour-Jim-Greens-Maori =61 seats
or
National-Act-NZFirst-United = 61 seats

LAbour probably looks more likely. They know they can rely on Greens & Jim, which means just negotiating with Maori and United (though United have said they won't support any Greens in cabinet, which throws a spanner in the works), both parties generally more likely to lean Labour's way.
Whereas National have to negotiate with Winston, which could really take a long time and definitely has the potential to be a total screw-up. Longer it takes, the more chance for Labour to sort itself out with Maori and have United onboard for confidence issues.

So I think a Labour third term most likely. Brash won't resign, like he said he would if they lost, because they've done so well and come so close this time round.

I think the government needs 62 seats, not 61, so that they have a majority in Parliament. That makes things a bit tricky since both sets of parties you mentioned equal 61. It's likely that Labour will also need support from United Future, which has said it will support the largest coalition. The Greens might have to stay more on the sidelines while United Future could be part of the coalition. Personally I hope the Greens get one more seat from the special votes, as then Labour could form a majority without Dunne, which would serve him right for refusing to work with the Greens.

I think the government needs 62 seats, not 61, so that they have a majority in Parliament. That makes things a bit tricky since both sets of parties you mentioned equal 61. It's likely that Labour will also need support from United Future, which has said it will support the largest coalition. The Greens might have to stay more on the sidelines while United Future could be part of the coalition. Personally I hope the Greens get one more seat from the special votes, as then Labour could form a majority without Dunne, which would serve him right for refusing to work with the Greens.
Yes, I know 62 is needed for an outright majority but 61 is close enough, if Labour could rely on United to support them on confidence issues (which they probably would). Another possiblity is have them agree to abstain on some issues.

And yeah, I hope Greens or Progressive manage to get one (or even one each) seat from the specials. I especially would love to see Progressive get one more, as Matt Robson is an excellent MP. The specials went against Labour last time, so maybe National might find itself with the most seats. Interesting times. Personally I hope not, as National education policy is basically a declaration of war against the Teachers Union, and if it ever went through, NZ will be seeing MASSIVE school strikes.

I don't like how Dunne's trying to dictate to Helen cabinet make-up, so any way he can be side-lined is a good thing. He seems to be really fence sitting, saying things that appeal to both parties. He's come out saying he won't support Greens in a cabinet, yet also said Labour has policies more in agreement with his own. I suppose I can't blame him for that - probably trying to get the best deal from each party. But still - he shouldn't be dictating how a cabinet is set up.

Pretty worringly the statements already coming out of the Maori party. Saying things like they'd much rather see another election than compromise on anything. Don't they realise that Politics is compromise? And great way to screw yourself over and kill your party. Considering how bitter this election was, do they really think the populace (let alone the politicians) want to go through this all again?

Well I didnt say that the reason I see Brash's behaviour as being racist is because he said we should be one.

Ok. But I would ask you to justify your claim that he is racist.

However I would contend that if by one you mean that everyone should be treated as though everyone were the same, and that the treatment everyone should get ought to be decided according to pakeha ideology, that this is at best ethnocentric in theory and probably in practise would equate to racist policies that are more divisive than uniting.

How does removal of race-based funding/special treatment affect Maori culture? It doesn't, and I certainly can't see how that is ethnocentric.

Well getting rid of brussel sprouts is fine by me, however I recognise my interest isnt the only interest involved so I dont expect that my views on brussel sprouts should take precedence over the views of those who actually have a use for brussel sprouts....quite the opposite in fact.

The difference being that a large number of people actually share my view...

What race based funding? ?

Just as one example, state schools up and down the country are allocated more funding based on the number of Maori and Pacific Island students they have. If that isn't race based, then tell me what is?

So far as I know Maori have legitimate claims on needs based funding, at least if need means what I have always taken it to mean. If a particular group suffer particularly from something we as a society seek to prevent or mitigate, how does that not equal a need.

Yes. But don't forget that there are non-Maori who are a part of that group too. We are all human beings aren't we? Give me one good reason why race should be a determining factor in anything. There's something racist about that...

That doesnt change his view. The fact that he wont act on the view because it isnt politically pragmatic to do so, doesnt change the kind of thinking that led him to form the view in the first place.

I still don't understand what you have to fear if he can't change the legislation, or even from his view.

I have no idea why. The only party to deliver stable government under MMP and evidently without sacrificing economic well-being.

Oh please. As you said, MMP is relatively new. We've only had three different governments under it. Just because Helen Clark has managed to hold together her last two coalitions doesn't necessarily mean she can do it this time. Just because National's coalition with NZ First fell apart doesn't mean that National will forever be incapable of holding together a coalition government... and I would just like to remind you that that National government, New Zealand's first ever under MMP, did actually last for a full term.

Frankly, I think we can do a heck of a lot better without Labour and the Greens. I'm sick and tired of this government's socialist agenda, not to mention Helen Clark's shear arrogance and inability to front up when a mistake has been made. This country is in need of a change and at least half of voters agree.

Right, and who started those reforms....the Labour party.

Yes, and who opposed those reforms? Helen Elizabeth Clark.

I disagree, as do all the NZ'ers I know who are planning to return from Australia or already have.

Australians are better off about $9000 a year more than us per capita. That's actually quite significant, and regardless of whether your friends agree or not, many more New Zealanders won't be returning anytime soon.


Actually our taxes are not high by international standards....evidently some of the highest taxes in the world also coincide with some of the best standards of living in the world...

Well the government’s 2001 Tax Review recommended that tax should be lower and flatter, if we are to achieve its top priority of faster economic growth. The country had an operating surplus of over seven billion dollars in the last fiscal year alone, and could easily afford tax relief despite what Michael Cullen says. It’s quite clear that Clark and Cullen are only interested in income redistribution.

as for incentive to stay in the country, a lot of ex-students left because paying off student loans with the incredibly high interest is very hard, getting rid of the interest will give many such people a very good reason to stay.

Instead of coming up with that ridiculous student loan package, why not cut all hard working New Zealanders some slack? Such across the board tax cuts as National is offering would benefit around 85% of taxpayers and provide real encouragement, rewarding those who work. Labour’s interest-free student loan policy will only encourage more into debt, as the infamous Treasury report said.

Unemployment is lower than when labour took government two terms ago, it is lower than under the last national government, and the national govenment before that and the national government before that. No point going back further because earlier than that the economic conditions were vastly different (we used to have preferential treatment in UK markets for our agricultural and farming exports).

Well I can't argue with that, but we can do a lot better under a centre-right government. National's work for the dole scheme would be a brilliant start and far more effective than anything Labour has done to encourage the 350,000 people who are dependent on the unemployment benefit out into the work force.



Don Brash for PM!

The maori seats aren't needed under MMP. If people are worried about maori issues they can vote for the maori party to represent them. I am roughly half maori and I hate the ideas of the maori seats. It is racial discrimination to have some seats reserved in parliment specificly for a single race.

Bravo. :)

Man i wrote a great thread on New Zealand politics like 2 days ago!

It didn't make it in tho!

Even the internet hates young white males!
Just like the new zealand government!

We made the god damn country! When the hell did we let it go?

I think somewhere along the line we gave it away like you might a bone to a pack of dogs then the dogs hate you for not giving them more and we packed up and moved to aussy.

Why am i still here? Sitting in the rain?

Bout time i got all militant on NZs arse :sniper: and get some green goo shooters :gundge: and it'll be all :mp5: till i win and then it'll be all :fluffle: though they look rather same sex smilies which is cool but just not my style. What's with bluey? :eek: look at him...... all blue n stuff.

Where was I?
Oh yes! 7 is the best number ever and you all suck for thinking otherwise

And yeah, I hope Greens or Progressive manage to get one (or even one each) seat from the specials. I especially would love to see Progressive get one more, as Matt Robson is an excellent MP. The specials went against Labour last time, so maybe National might find itself with the most seats. Interesting times. Personally I hope not, as National education policy is basically a declaration of war against the Teachers Union, and if it ever went through, NZ will be seeing MASSIVE school strikes.

Haha. My best friends dad happens to be Bill English, the National Education spokesman. Although I much prefer Labour in most other aspects, I think National actually have some good ideas based around changing the current NCEA system and making it easier for everyone to understand.

Haha. My best friends dad happens to be Bill English, the National Education spokesman. Although I much prefer Labour in most other aspects, I think National actually have some good ideas based around changing the current NCEA system and making it easier for everyone to
understand.

lol. I met Bill English when he spoke in Whangarei during the 2002 election campaign. He's a great guy.

Nope they mean all tv chanels. And yes it wont get through parliment but the fact that they want to is important.
I am aware they wish to effect the change through an act that would apply to all tv broadcasters, that is why I dont support the policy. It isnt significant because they dont have the power to push it through as a party and it isnt something that New Zealanders will support. If either of these were not the case it would be significant, but it's not the case so it doesnt really matter. They are not in a position to lead the country according to their mind set and their mind set is not likely to result in the kind of popular support that will enable them to push policies through simply by advocating what few politicians would dare to oppose.

Ok fair enough. I spent some more time looking through the greens policy and found some more interesting ones.
"Work towards a ban on GE food imports and, in the interim, improve the labelling requirements"
The furtherest they are likely to get is to have the labeling policy implemented. That would increase not decrease free choice. I dont really care what they want so long as it isnt popularly supported and they dont have the numbers to push it through.

"Restrict land ownership to citizens and permanent residents living in NZ for at least half of each year"
I will no longer have the right to sell my land to whoever I want to.
"Require land use to better match land type."
Or decide what I want to do with it.
These restrictions actually do already apply to a degree. Such restrictions have existed long before the Greens showed up on the scene.

The maori seats aren't needed under MMP. If people are worried about maori issues they can vote for the maori party to represent them. I am roughly half maori and I hate the ideas of the maori seats. It is racial discrimination to have some seats reserved in parliment specificly for a single race.
The Maori seats are needed, in fact they serve more purpose under MMP than they did under FFP.

Ok. But I would ask you to justify your claim that he is racist.
He may not be a racist, he might simply invoke racist policy for political gain. I doubt Brash is less educated about needs based funding than I am, and if that is the case then his policy (in regards to needs based funding) is intentionally racist.

How does removal of race-based funding/special treatment affect Maori culture?
What?

It doesn't, and I certainly can't see how that is ethnocentric.
It is ethnocentric to expect one group to assimulate into the culture of another group just so the assimulators can carry on as though their way were somehow more valid or correct just because it is their way.

The difference being that a large number of people actually share my view...
The tryanny of the majority is to be as feared as the tryanny of the minority.

Just as one example, state schools up and down the country are allocated more funding based on the number of Maori and Pacific Island students they have. If that isn't race based, then tell me what is?
The policy is based on measurable need. This is called needs based funding in every circumstance expect where the group whose need is being targeted happens to be an ethnic group. How is it not racist to target funding according to need in every case except where those experiancing the need happen to be an ethnic/racial group?

Yes. But don't forget that there are non-Maori who are a part of that group too.
No, 'non-Maori' are not part of the group 'Maori'.

We are all human beings aren't we? Give me one good reason why race should be a determining factor in anything. There's something racist about that...
Race isnt a determining factor, need is. Under Brash the opposite would be the case. Race would be used to determine that a group, regardless of need, wasnt targeted for funding. That would be race determining funding.

I still don't understand what you have to fear if he can't change the legislation, or even from his view.
Because the veiw didnt arise in a mental vacum. If Brash is leading the government then he can have his views passed into law. He might not to so with this one particular view, but none the less the mind set that arrived at that view would be the mind set that led our legislative body. The rational that led him to such a view would be the rational leading the government, I find that to be somewhat of a concern.

Oh please. As you said, MMP is relatively new. We've only had three different governments under it. Just because Helen Clark has managed to hold together her last two coalitions doesn't necessarily mean she can do it this time. Just because National's coalition with NZ First fell apart doesn't mean that National will forever be incapable of holding together a coalition government... and I would just like to remind you that that National government, New Zealand's first ever under MMP, did actually last for a full term.
Only through party hoppers, and since that loophole has been closed...
The fact is the national party have not been stable for quite some time. It maybe that they now have their house in order, but until they have demonstrated that they can maintain internal stability in their own party, why should they be trusted to maintain cross party stability in our Parliament? Labour have been stable for quite some time (they also went through a period of instability), National may or may not have arrived at stability, but we know that labour are stable.

Frankly, I think we can do a heck of a lot better without Labour and the Greens. I'm sick and tired of this government's socialist agenda, not to mention Helen Clark's shear arrogance and inability to front up when a mistake has been made. This country is in need of a change and at least half of voters agree.
What socialist agenda? Labour are a centre government. I dont care about Clark's personal attributes, she has delivered stable government and a sound economic climate without overly sacrificing social well being. There is no pressing reason to change government, nor is there any obviously superior government waiting to take over, so I dont see that we will necessarily do as well, much less better, under a change of government.

Yes, and who opposed those reforms? Helen Elizabeth Clark.
How is that relevent? The reforms are being credited with having facilitated a good economic climate, it wasnt national that initiated them. Whatever Clark thought at the time, she has not risked the gains that occured as a result. The point is that national didnt do anything to make the gains occur and Clark has done nothing to make the gains disappear. Nit pick as you will the economic stability was initiated by a labour government and it bore fruit under a labour government. National didnt start them and national didnt capitalise on them either. The economic improvements resulted from labour policy. National of course opposed the reforms as well, yet you are still happy to support them. So labour initiated the reforms, Clark and national had objections. The reforms have enabled labour to provide stable governance and a good economic climate. Your conclusion is that labour and
Clark deserve no credit whatsoever because Clark had objection, and we would therefore be better off with National despite National having had objections....I can only conclude that your conclusion is based on partianship rather than on an objective consideration of the facts.

Australians are better off about $9000 a year more than us per capita. That's actually quite significant, and regardless of whether your friends agree or not, many more New Zealanders won't be returning anytime soon.
Per capita does not tell us anything whatsoever about where the money is.

Well the government’s 2001 Tax Review recommended that tax should be lower and flatter, if we are to achieve its top priority of faster economic growth.
the Tax Review priorities are not neccesarily the priorities of New Zealanders. Improved economic growth is not always worth sacrificing social well-being for. In some cases it is necessary to do so. That's why all the suffering through the reforms that led to our improved position. We are doing well now and it is therefore a good time to consider economic growth as a priority rather than the only or most important priority. We need money in order to live; we dont live in order to need money.

The country had an operating surplus of over seven billion dollars in the last fiscal year alone, and could easily afford tax relief despite what Michael Cullen says.
You are joking! Is that how you would run a household, spending everything that comes in, putting nothing aside for an adverse change in circumstances or an exceptional need?

It’s quite clear that Clark and Cullen are only interested in income redistribution.
No, it is quite clear that they are interested in much more than income redistribution, otherwise they'd have handed the suplus out to low income people already. The fact that they would run a surplus rather than hand the money out to low income earners is proof in itself that they have other interests than redistribution.

Instead of coming up with that ridiculous student loan package, why not cut all hard working New Zealanders some slack?
Instead of coming up with tax breaks for those already doing very well (many of whom had their tertiary education paid for by the tax payers), how about doing something that will benefit those who need it the most?
The fact is the student loan scheme as it currently stands is unfair and have negative social impacts. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Why should someone go to university and benefit the countries 'knowledge economy' when to do so they have to pay interest rates that actually are above the commercial rates a profit making bank would pay? Is there some reason those who had their education paid for should now get a tax break paid for in part by the profits from the loans of current students who have to pay for their own education? Talk about double dipping. First they had their education paid for by their parents' generation, then they dont want to pay for the next generation to have the same, but worse still they actually want to make a profit out their children's generation's education....I dont doubt they also expect that same generation (who still may not have worked off the high interest on their debt) to fund their retirement generously too....what a bloody bunch of skivers. Hard working....more like working hard at getting all the benefits without contributing to the costs.

Well I can't argue with that, but we can do a lot better under a centre-right government.
Could we? I have my doubts because last time we had such a government we did worse not better, and the time before that, same deal....when was the last time we did do better under a national government? Before the economic conditions changed after we lost preferential treatment in the UK market...national have never delivered good performance since then....why suddenly would they do so now?

National's work for the dole scheme would be a brilliant start and far more effective than anything Labour has done to encourage the 350,000 people who are dependent on the unemployment benefit out into the work force.
Right, it was so good that National already benched it last time they tried it out....why would it work all of a sudden now? It's not like we have a significant unemployment problem.

Is there some reason why you would believe that paying someone the dole to do work that would otherwise be an actual job will reduce joblessness rather than increase it? Looks kind'a backwards to me.

Such across the board tax cuts as National is offering would benefit around 85% of taxpayers and provide real encouragement, rewarding those who work.
No, National's cuts would give many families (those who really need it) less than a loaf of bread. They wouldnt help my family much if at all. The increase in inflation would counter any actual money in the hands. Labour by targeting those most need the money will not only put less inflationary pressure on the economy, they will also stimulate the economy because those getting the money will more likely put it back into circulation (ie spend it). People who already have everything they need and a great deal of what they want will probably use it to buy yet another rental house, driving up house prices so the rest of us cant afford to buy in, and actually giving most of the profit away to a foreign owned bank in the form of interest...

Labour’s interest-free student loan policy will only encourage more into debt, as the infamous Treasury report said.
Ahh, the infamous Treasury report, the same Treasury personal predicted that ending interest on loans for those studying still studying, would have the same effects, and it didnt. Why should we believe their identical prediction this time, when last time they were entirely wrong?!

Even though we cannot afford to entirely fund tertiary education for this generation as we did for previous generations, there is no need to charge such ridiculous amounts of interest, especially if not charging such amounts of interest encourages graduates to stay in New Zealand, paying taxes, adding their expertise to the economy and generally contributing to society.

BTW: apparently the airplane dude was 'inspired' by a relationship breakup....love hurts I guess.... :( ;)

I am aware they wish to effect the change through an act that would apply to all tv broadcasters, that is why I dont support the policy. It isnt significant because they dont have the power to push it through as a party and it isnt something that New Zealanders will support. If either of these were not the case it would be significant, but it's not the case so it doesnt really matter. They are not in a position to lead the country according to their mind set and their mind set is not likely to result in the kind of popular support that will enable them to push policies through simply by advocating what few politicians would dare to oppose.

The furtherest they are likely to get is to have the labeling policy implemented. That would increase not decrease free choice. I dont really care what they want so long as it isnt popularly supported and they dont have the numbers to push it through.

This discussion started because you attacked the destiny church for wanting to force their opinion on people, they have even less chance of doing so than the greens do. This is an argument about intentions not ability.


These restrictions actually do already apply to a degree. Such restrictions have existed long before the Greens showed up on the scene.

Yes but they are tight enough as it is.


The Maori seats are needed, in fact they serve more purpose under MMP than they did under FFP.

Explain your reasoning.

Per capita does not tell us anything whatsoever about where the money is.

GDP per capita is a useful indicator of living standards. It is not the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration but it is an indicator.


Ahh, the infamous Treasury report, the same Treasury personal predicted that ending interest on loans for those studying still studying, would have the same effects, and it didnt. Why should we believe their identical prediction this time, when last time they were entirely wrong?!

There is a huge difference between making student loans intrest free for the period of study and making them intrest free indefenatly. Why wouldn't you get out a student loan? I wasn't going to under the old system but why shouldn't I now?

He may not be a racist, he might simply invoke racist policy for political gain. I doubt Brash is less educated about needs based funding than I am, and if that is the case then his policy (in regards to needs based funding) is intentionally racist.

What?

Am I not correct in assuming that what you were trying to say was that to choose one form of equality is to pick one standard of culture and thus to squeeze out other cultures? If that's the case, then I'm not sure I see how removing race based funding (if it exists) can be considered ethnocentric. My apologies if I’ve misinterpreted what you were getting at…

It is ethnocentric to expect one group to assimulate into the culture of another group just so the assimulators can carry on as though their way were somehow more valid or correct just because it is their way.

That's where I have the problem though. I just don't think that by removing race-based funding and so called special treatment for Maori it is assimilating them into our culture.

The policy is based on measurable need. This is called needs based funding in every circumstance expect where the group whose need is being targeted happens to be an ethnic group. How is it not racist to target funding according to need in every case except where those experiancing the need happen to be an ethnic/racial group?

No, 'non-Maori' are not part of the group 'Maori'.

By group, I meant those in need. You cannot deny that Maori aren’t the only people in need. There exist poor pakeha in this country too, so I have a problem when you say that those experiencing need are part of any one ethnic or racial group... because they are most certainly not.

Race isnt a determining factor, need is.

Oh but it is a determining factor. Otherwise a poor pakeha or a poor Asian student would attract just as much money as a poor Maori student. You know that’s not the case in this country, and I don’t see any good reason why it should remain so.

Under Brash the opposite would be the case. Race would be used to determine that a group, regardless of need, wasnt targeted for funding. That would be race determining funding.

So what you are saying is that it is racist to not offer preferential treatment to one particular racial group over others?

How is that relevent? The reforms are being credited with having facilitated a good economic climate, it wasnt national that initiated them. Whatever Clark thought at the time, she has not risked the gains that occured as a result. The point is that national didnt do anything to make the gains occur and Clark has done nothing to make the gains disappear. Nit pick as you will the economic stability was initiated by a labour government and it bore fruit under a labour government. National didnt start them and national didnt capitalise on them either. The economic improvements resulted from labour policy. National of course opposed the reforms as well, yet you are still happy to support them. So labour initiated the reforms, Clark and national had objections. The reforms have enabled labour to provide stable governance and a good economic climate.
Your conclusion is that labour and
Clark deserve no credit whatsoever because Clark had objection, and we would therefore be better off with National despite National having had objections....I can only conclude that your conclusion is based on partianship rather than on an objective consideration of the facts.

I never said that Labour deserve no credit, because they do. My support for National is based on current policies and pledges, albeit my political beliefs are probably right wing. Just because I’d vote for them now doesn’t mean I would have 20 years ago, and I certainly have no permanent alignment with them. Nor do I have any permanent dislike for Labour. I do however dislike Clark’s socialist views and the rationale that lead her to form those views, not disimilar to how you feel about Brash. Having her as head of our legislative body is a scary prospect to me.
While National may have opposed Rogernomics, Brash did not, and my support for them is largely because of him. I like the man, and believe strongly in where he wants to take us.

Obviously you don’t :p, and fair enough.

What socialist agenda? Labour are a centre government.

Well for a start, they openly describe themselves as a socialist democratic government. Socialist democrats generally believe in promoting socialism through the democratic process…

There is no pressing reason to change government, nor is there any obviously superior government waiting to take over, so I dont see that we will necessarily do as well, much less better, under a change of government.

That obviously depends what side of the political spectrum you are on. :D

You are joking! Is that how you would run a household, spending everything that comes in, putting nothing aside for an adverse change in circumstances or an exceptional need?

National is not proposing to spend every cent, nor was I. I was just saying that a $9 billion dollar tax cut over three years is easily affordable if we are running a surplus of some seven billion dollars a year. National’s proposed tax package would still lead to a surplus of 2% per GDP annually which is between $2 and 3 billion dollars I think. That is sufficient enough to maintain a healthy and vibrant economy. Only a small amount of capital expenditure would be funded by loan, and is perfectly normal commercial practice. To make money you have to spend money.

No, it is quite clear that they are interested in much more than income redistribution, otherwise they'd have handed the suplus out to low income people already. The fact that they would run a surplus rather than hand the money out to low income earners is proof in itself that they have other interests than redistribution.

They won’t be running such a large surplus for much longer. Not once the student loans package and boost to Working for Families are introduced.

No, National's cuts would give many families (those who really need it) less than a loaf of bread. They wouldnt help my family much if at all. The increase in inflation would counter any actual money in the hands. Labour by targeting those most need the money will not only put less inflationary pressure on the economy, they will also stimulate the economy because those getting the money will more likely put it back into circulation (ie spend it).

Labour isn’t just targeting those in need though. Its increase to the Working for Families package will actually benefit many middle income families, such as my own (and actually we would get more under Labour than National), while still taxing them high. Low tax boosts the number of those returning to work, business growth and investment. Countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong have demonstrated this and New Zealand should be following their example if we are to actually achieve growth and improve our living standards.

People who already have everything they need and a great deal of what they want will probably use it to buy yet another rental house, driving up house prices so the rest of us cant afford to buy in, and actually giving most of the profit away to a foreign owned bank in the form of interest...

It irritates me how tax cuts can only ever benefit the rich for some reason. That is quite untrue. My family isn’t rich but will still benefit greatly from tax relief, as will thousands of others. Earning $30-50k isn't necessarily rich.

Right, it was so good that National already benched it last time they tried it out....why would it work all of a sudden now? It's not like we have a significant unemployment problem.

Is there some reason why you would believe that paying someone the dole to do work that would otherwise be an actual job will reduce joblessness rather than increase it? Looks kind'a backwards to me.

Well, I said it’s a start. To be honest I don’t really remember National’s original working for the dole scheme or why they scrapped it. Even if it doesn’t push more into the work force at least they (the unemployed) will be contributing to the community rather than just sitting back and doing nothing while those with jobs provide their incomes.

We don’t have a significant unemployment problem, I agree. But there is still something wrong about the taxpayer having to provide people who could otherwise work with an income…

Ahh, the infamous Treasury report, the same Treasury personal predicted that ending interest on loans for those studying still studying, would have the same effects, and it didnt. Why should we believe their identical prediction this time, when last time they were entirely wrong?!

Time will tell I suppose.

Even though we cannot afford to entirely fund tertiary education for this generation as we did for previous generations, there is no need to charge such ridiculous amounts of interest, especially if not charging such amounts of interest encourages graduates to stay in New Zealand, paying taxes, adding their expertise to the economy and generally contributing to society.

National’s proposal to make interest on student loans tax deductible coupled with its Fair Tax plan would provide a good incentive as any for people to stay and work in New Zealand. Removing interest entirely from student loans is crazy at best, not to mention unfair. Crazy because there is good enough reason to believe that it will encourage more into debt and unfair because all working New Zealanders deserve tax relief not just one particular group.

BTW: apparently the airplane dude was 'inspired' by a relationship breakup....love hurts I guess....

Haha. Yeah I saw him on the news last night appearing in court. He seemed somewhere else, like not with it. Craaazy. Do you know what happened to the Tauranga guy? I heard he got charged with burglary.

This discussion started because you attacked the destiny church for wanting to force their opinion on people,
No that is not correct.

they have even less chance of doing so than the greens do. This is an argument about intentions not ability.
There is more to ability to pass policy into law, than the size of ones political party. The likely popularity of the actual policy itself is relevent for instance.

Explain your reasoning.
Under FFP the seats simply went to the least 'unfriendly to Maori' party. They did not afford Maori interests proper representation. Under MMP the situation is such that small parties are now feasable. So under MMP the Maori seats can actually go to parties that do represent Maori interests.

GDP per capita is a useful indicator of living standards. It is not the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration but it is an indicator.
Right, so another words GPD doesnt tell us how much, if at all, better off the average Australian is compared to the average New Zealander....

There is a huge difference between making student loans intrest free for the period of study and making them intrest free indefenatly. Why wouldn't you get out a student loan? I wasn't going to under the old system but why shouldn't I now?
Why should you now if you can afford not to? You still have to pay the money back. Why should you get a student loan intended for people who need them, if you dont need one? :confused:

No that is not correct.

Not wanting to offend anyone by stating the obvious, but I suspect because Taiwan wants to impose his or her own ignorant beliefs on people that dont personally hold whatever those beliefs are.

That's my guess anyhow.

Every political party wants to force their views on others, for example the Greens are trying to force Aucklanders to use public transport by cancelling road funding. Or what about Labour proposing legislation forcing new teachers to learn Maori pronounciation?

That is not a matter of forcing views. It is a matter of deciding on what is necessary to solve problems. There is a vast difference between saying 'there is a lot of pollution that is causing damage, let us encourage people to not pollute', and 'I think homosexuality is bad, therefore I have the right to stop other people from getting married'. One is attempting to address a tangible problem, the other is trying to force other people to act in accord with ideas and notions that cannot be objectively shown to be correct.

source: http://www.greens.org.nz

"Stopping the sale of fizzy drinks, sugary drinks, lollies, and chippies on school property."

"Ensure violent programmes are scheduled for after 10 p.m. at night (and strictly enforce this through the Broadcasting Standards Authority)."

Unfortunatly it is a matter of forcing views, you just happen to agree with these views more.

And so on and so fourth. So yes it did.

There is more to ability to pass policy into law, than the size of ones political party. The likely popularity of the actual policy itself is relevent for instance.

No one is going to listen to either the greens or the Destiny Church on their more extreme views so this point is irrelevant.

Why should you now if you can afford not to? You still have to pay the money back. Why should you get a student loan intended for people who need them, if you dont need one?

Because I can put the money in a term deposit and get the intrest free, so why shouldn't I? It's free money and I'm going to end up having to pay for a bunch of other people to do the same in the future anyway. I know its greedy but thats life.

Right, so another words GPD doesnt tell us how much, if at all, better off the average Australian is compared to the average New Zealander....

Ok. Sorry my comment was a bit misleading. I am talking about living standards.

Because I can put the money in a term deposit and get the intrest free, so why shouldn't I? It's free money and I'm going to end up having to pay for a bunch of other people to do the same in the future anyway. I know its greedy but thats life.

My reasoning entirely. It is apparently the reasoning of many other students who I know.

Labour's new student loans policy should have very little effect on borrowing rates. The fact is that Labour's current policy on student loans already provides an incentive to borrow as much as possible during every year of study. Since you can only borrow while studying, there's not much reason to start borrowing if you weren't going to under the present system.

I'm a Masters student with a pretty big loan and I'm just glad that I'll be able to stay here in NZ and work without being crippled by my loan, even with NZ's lower pay rates. I'm also looking forward to paying for my education once instead of two or three times. While it may not be entirely fair that this policy is targeted at students, the present system is also unfair, and on the whole the policy should have positive effects for the country.

Because I can put the money in a term deposit and get the intrest free, so why shouldn't I? It's free money and I'm going to end up having to pay for a bunch of other people to do the same in the future anyway. I know its greedy but thats life.
Wow. I can see you just gobble up whatever crap is put out by the right.

*sigh*

Let's explain this one more time.

Under the current student loan scheme, you're ONLY entitled to personally receive $156 p/week while studying full time, for 5 years. This is based on your parents income as well, if you're under 21. From memory, if your parents combined gross income is over $50 000 (which equals a staggering $700 p/week after tax), and you still live at home, you get NOTHING. Also, if you're working while studying, you get NOTHING.
All other costs are paid directly to the university. Apart from $1000 p/year which you can claim for textbooks and other course-related expenses. To get this money, you have to send in the receipts of the stuff you've already bought.

To summarise: All you can get, if you're living away from home and your parents are on low income, is $156 p/week.

So if you can manage to live in a flat, pay for your books, pay for your rent, food, power, water, clothes, other general living expenses AND still ferret away some or all of that impressively large $156 p/week into a term deposit account while studying all power to you. I for one would be extremely impressed with your financial accumen and parsimony.
Also, if you could tell me which bank accepts $156 as starting capital for term deposit, I'd appreciate it. Just curious, cause every bank term deposit I've ever come across asks for $1000 minimum.

Incidently: Currently, while studying fulltime, the interest rate on the student loan is 0% anyway. So why haven't we seen thousands of students already doing what you suggest? I mean they have up to 5 years of interest free loan available to them already. If you could find these hordes of financially-savvy misers for me, I'd also appreciate that as well. I'd just like to know how to live on less than $150 p/week so I can save more of my own money.

And it's not like you can get away with never paying it back either. It's automatically deducted from your salary before you even get it.


For me personally, I don't agree with interest being charged. Fine, I should shoulder some of the costs for my own education, but why should the government then profit from me? They'll already do so through the increased tax they get off me when I graduate.
The year before I went back and did a post-grad diploma my annual income was $21000 gross, with about $4000 in tax. 2 years after finishing the diploma, I was on $45000 gross, and paying nearly $10000 in tax. My further education was gaiving the government $6000 p/year extra in tax revenue. And on top of that, they were charging me interest on my student loan that was near or above the mortgage lending rate.

if they'd had this in already I've had paid off my loan by now and would have had enough saved up for a deposit on a house. Thereby helping to stimulate the economy further.

Well the government’s 2001 Tax Review recommended that tax should be lower and flatter, if we are to achieve its top priority of faster economic growth. The country had an operating surplus of over seven billion dollars in the last fiscal year alone, and could easily afford tax relief despite what Michael Cullen says. It’s quite clear that Clark and Cullen are only interested in income redistribution.
As Cullen has said time and time again - it's a yearly surplus. This means it mightn't be there next year. Whereas a tax cut is (semi) permanent. You can't rely on having a surplus each and every year - and indeed, forecasts show economic growth (and thus the surplus) is shrinking and drying up over the next few years. What they've mostly being doing with the surplus is paying off overseas debt, which has shrunk considerably over the past 5 years. And I can only see that as a good thing.

Really what you're suggesting would be akin to finding out you've won $10000 on Lotto and so decide that you don't need to pay back any debt, only need to work 30 hours a week from now on, and just hope like hell that you'll win another 10 grand next year (and every year thereafter) to continue your new lifestyle.

Wow. I can see you just gobble up whatever crap is put out by the right.

*sigh*

Let's explain this one more time.

Under the current student loan scheme, you're ONLY entitled to personally receive $156 p/week while studying full time, for 5 years. This is based on your parents income as well, if you're under 21. From memory, if your parents combined gross income is over $50 000 (which equals a staggering $700 p/week after tax), and you still live at home, you get NOTHING. Also, if you're working while studying, you get NOTHING.
All other costs are paid directly to the university. Apart from $1000 p/year which you can claim for textbooks and other course-related expenses. To get this money, you have to send in the receipts of the stuff you've already bought.

To summarise: All you can get, if you're living away from home and your parents are on low income, is $156 p/week.

So if you can manage to live in a flat, pay for your books, pay for your rent, food, power, water, clothes, other general living expenses AND still ferret away some or all of that impressively large $156 p/week into a term deposit account while studying all power to you. I for one would be extremely impressed with your financial accumen and parsimony.
Also, if you could tell me which bank accepts $156 as starting capital for term deposit, I'd appreciate it. Just curious, cause every bank term deposit I've ever come across asks for $1000 minimum.

Incidently: Currently, while studying fulltime, the interest rate on the student loan is 0% anyway. So why haven't we seen thousands of students already doing what you suggest? I mean they have up to 5 years of interest free loan available to them already. If you could find these hordes of financially-savvy misers for me, I'd also appreciate that as well. I'd just like to know how to live on less than $150 p/week so I can save more of my own money.

And it's not like you can get away with never paying it back either. It's automatically deducted from your salary before you even get it.


For me personally, I don't agree with interest being charged. Fine, I should shoulder some of the costs for my own education, but why should the government then profit from me? They'll already do so through the increased tax they get off me when I graduate.
The year before I went back and did a post-grad diploma my annual income was $21000 gross, with about $4000 in tax. 2 years after finishing the diploma, I was on $45000 gross, and paying nearly $10000 in tax. My further education was gaiving the government $6000 p/year extra in tax revenue. And on top of that, they were charging me interest on my student loan that was near or above the mortgage lending rate.

if they'd had this in already I've had paid off my loan by now and would have had enough saved up for a deposit on a house. Thereby helping to stimulate the economy further.

I think you may be confusing the student allowance and student living costs loan. The allowance is means-tested on your parents income, and you can't get it while working. Only about a third of students qualify. The loan is different though, you can get $150 while working and no matter what you or your parents earn. If you don't actually need to borrow to cover your living costs, the present system makes it worth borrowing just so you can stick the money in a term deposit (eventually). However, we already have all the incentive we need, and Labour's plan to completely do away with interest after graduation shouldn't make a difference.

I think you may be confusing the student allowance and student living costs loan. The allowance is means-tested on your parents income, and you can't get it while working. Only about a third of students qualify. The loan is different though, you can get $150 while working and no matter what you or your parents earn. If you don't actually need to borrow to cover your living costs, the present system makes it worth borrowing just so you can stick the money in a term deposit (eventually). However, we already have all the incentive we need, and Labour's plan to completely do away with interest after graduation shouldn't make a difference.
Whoops. I thought I'd made that boo-boo after I'd posted but I couldn't be bothered editing. My statement still stands though. You already can get a massive $150 p/week interest free at present, for up to 5 years. So why haven't hordes of people done this and stuck in on term deposit?
Gee...maybe cause they need it to live on.

As Cullen has said time and time again - it's a yearly surplus. This means it mightn't be there next year. Whereas a tax cut is (semi) permanent. You can't rely on having a surplus each and every year - and indeed, forecasts show economic growth (and thus the surplus) is shrinking and drying up over the next few years. What they've mostly being doing with the surplus is paying off overseas debt, which has shrunk considerably over the past 5 years. And I can only see that as a good thing.

Yes, and now that overseas debt is down to a reasonably low level it’s time for some tax relief. Economic growth is slowing, as you said, and we need to turn that around. It’s fact that countries with high taxation struggle to maintain economic growth. National is proposing to offer fair across the board tax cuts while still running a surplus of around 2% GDP, a level that is quite common throughout the western world and will borrow little. I think economists mostly agree that now is the best time for such moves.

Brash is a former Reserve Bank Governor and economist who worked successfully to keep inflation down through the '90s. I think he would understand the economy just as well as Cullen. The difference is that they are opposed ideologically. Cullen is apparently more interested in decreasing debt while still increasing spending and taxation… ultimately leading to 'bloated bureaucracy' and slowed growth. Brash promotes less government and more freedom to allow growth.

Really what you're suggesting would be akin to finding out you've won $10000 on Lotto and so decide that you don't need to pay back any debt, only need to work 30 hours a week from now on, and just hope like hell that you'll win another 10 grand next year (and every year thereafter) to continue your new lifestyle.

The surplus for the next four years or so is currently forecast to average around 3.7% GDP, that’s around $5 billion a year and is more than sufficient to cope with tax cuts. In our last budget Cullen had $8 billion sitting spare off a tax revenue of some $36.7 billion, that’s a recorded high and some form of fair tax relief is in order. Tax should be no higher than is needed to run the country.

lol. I met Bill English when he spoke in Whangarei during the 2002 election campaign. He's a great guy.
Yea. Hes really funny in person too, surprisingly. Awesome family guy. It's quite a shame what happened to him, but that's politics and he still cleaned up down South.

And so on and so fourth. So yes it did.
No, the comment you posted where I state that perhaps Taiwan wished to force views was in fact a flippant response to someone asking why Taiwan would vote for a party that wished to force their views on someone. Context is very important (especially online where a tongue in check tone of voice cannot be replicated).

No one is going to listen to either the greens or the Destiny Church on their more extreme views so this point is irrelevant.
Well a lot of people dont consider that wanting to discriminate against homosexual people is extreme. In fact quite a lot of people think not wanting to discriminate against homosexual people is extreme; frankly I dont think it would be that difficult for Destiny to get people to go along with discrinating against homosexuals, after all to do so has been the status quo for all of this countries history.

Because I can put the money in a term deposit and get the intrest free, so why shouldn't I? It's free money and I'm going to end up having to pay for a bunch of other people to do the same in the future anyway. I know its greedy but thats life.
The only people who can do that are the ones who should not be borrowing in the first place. I cant do that because I have to pay my fees with my loan. It's not possible to stop all abuse I suppose, but I dont see why I should have to pay extortionist interest rates on my loan just because some twat born with a silver spoon in their mouth is greedy and dishonest enough to try to rip the system off.

Ok. Sorry my comment was a bit misleading. I am talking about living standards.
Aha but that doesnt change my point. GDP states how much is produced by a state, not whether or not it is distributed in such a way that the average person's living standards in any way reflect GDP.

My reasoning entirely. It is apparently the reasoning of many other students who I know.
Then you know people who are scum. They are (although legally) ripping off taxpayers and should be ashamed of themselves....how many of these same people want low taxes when they work and also think poorly of beneficiaries for skiving off the taxpayer. Evidently I find it repugnant that those who are clearly doing quite alright are the ones ripping the system off the most. None the less I fail to see why I should be penalised because of these greedy scum.

At any rate without the interest deduction there is an invitation to abuse by not working and earning when one could do so. I for instance earnt enough money for a period of time last year that I didnt qualify for an allowance for quite some time, but I still needed to borrow the 150 living costs to cover my expenses. It would actually have been in my best interests to refuse the work I was offered and carry on with the allowance because I dont have to pay the allowance back, and with interest on top of the 150 living cost loan, the advantage of skiving an allowance when I could choose to work and pay my own way would be much greater.

Yes, and now that overseas debt is down to a reasonably low level it’s time for some tax relief. Economic growth is slowing, as you said, and we need to turn that around. It’s fact that countries with high taxation struggle to maintain economic growth. National is proposing to offer fair across the board tax cuts while still running a surplus of around 2% GDP, a level that is quite common throughout the western world and will borrow little. I think economists mostly agree that now is the best time for such moves.
No National is not offering across the board cuts, my household would not get a single cent more under national although we would under labour.
Under labour's offer only families already earning a very tidy sum would be excluded from benefiting directly, under Brash families earning very little would be excluded. I know which looks fairer to me...

Brash is a former Reserve Bank Governor and economist who worked successfully to keep inflation down through the '90s. I think he would understand the economy just as well as Cullen.
Brash is a politician now, he'll say what he needs to get elected and deal with the problem once he's in government.

Anyway, it's Friday night as I type this, so by this time tomorrow....we might have some clue as to who might form our government....maybe ;)

So, how about that government :cool:

So, how about that government :cool:
Ha, so much for my last prediction (regarding when we might find out who we have as a government)...
All I can say is :confused:

That's politics, if it all made sense it'd be something else entirely....;)

That was quite interesting though... not the result I was hoping for, but it's been very interesting. So... Winston Peters, foreign minister? lol. That was the most unlikely outcome.

Yeah its shit. After all of that, everyone loses but winston wins. Labour are going to have a tough time of it, and National are possibly heading for another change of leadership if Brash goes (or more likely, is pushed. He's getting on in years, see). So the next election will suck.

i had a NZ teacher before, thats all i know about newzealand, oh yeah, and its near australia!!! am i right??

i had a NZ teacher before, thats all i know about newzealand, oh yeah, and its near australia!!! am i right??


Australia is the nearest country yes, but it's not 'near' Australia like, say, Spain is near France.

Yeah its shit. After all of that, everyone loses but winston wins. Labour are going to have a tough time of it, and National are possibly heading for another change of leadership if Brash goes (or more likely, is pushed. He's getting on in years, see). So the next election will suck.

Yep, Brash is a goner. I'd give him another six months, if that. (edit: I take that back. I've just been feeling pessimistic about the new Labour-led government. Brash has rebuilt the party and changed the political landscape in New Zealand for the better. He damn well is going to be Prime Minister... I meant to add that within minutes of posting this message over a year ago. Sigh.) I wonder who will replace him (when the time comes) though? They say Key, but he doesn't sound very confident about the leadership... maybe Bill English will make a come back.

I wish Peters would retire.

Yep, Brash is a gonner. I'd give him another six months, if that. I wonder who will replace him though? They say Key, but he doesn't sound very confident about the leadership... maybe Bill English will make a come back.

I wish Peters would retire.
I would be awesome if Bill did make a comeback. He's my best mates dad and if he was leader again, they would get a mint house lol..

Peters is a fuck faced idiot liar.

I would be awesome if Bill did make a comeback. He's my best mates dad and if he was leader again, they would get a mint house lol..

Peters is a fuck faced idiot liar.
Bill is a good guy.

Bill is a good guy.
Sure is.
Funny in real life too.

About a month or two ago my Mum's work was given a bit of slack in the Sunday Star Times (she's CEO of Mary Potter Hospice). Bill and her taked and he helped her out. Got her in touch with PR people and whatnot.
In the end the article was pretty pathetic and was in section C or something.
So yea, Bill's good.

I think you may be confusing the student allowance and student living costs loan. The allowance is means-tested on your parents income, and you can't get it while working. Only about a third of students qualify. The loan is different though, you can get $150 while working and no matter what you or your parents earn. If you don't actually need to borrow to cover your living costs, the present system makes it worth borrowing just so you can stick the money in a term deposit (eventually). However, we already have all the incentive we need, and Labour's plan to completely do away with interest after graduation shouldn't make a difference.

You can work while getting the student allowance, you can now earn upto $100 per week before the allowance is reduced by 70¢ per dollar over the limit, it will rise to $180 per week in 2006.

Sure is.
Funny in real life too.

About a month or two ago my Mum's work was given a bit of slack in the Sunday Star Times (she's CEO of Mary Potter Hospice). Bill and her taked and he helped her out. Got her in touch with PR people and whatnot.
In the end the article was pretty pathetic and was in section C or something.
So yea, Bill's good.
It was really awful to hear about those Punk Arsed Hippie Uni Punks who called him a loser after losing the leadership, but he got them backas their cause was a failure as well.

It was really awful to hear about those Punk Arsed Hippie Uni Punks who called him a loser after losing the leadership, but he got them backas their cause was a failure as well.
As someone who goes to Vic Uni, I wish those hippies would wash. Once a week isn't too much to ask.

Know what sucks? This whole NCEA bullshit. It seemed ok. Now it keeps getting fucked up. Like all the marking problems and standards being too easy/hard. Government seems content to sit on their ass and watch to see what the result is.

Yeah...

Ask away...

I've come to the conclusion that I will have to vote for Labour next year, because they will keep me in employment and provide me with lots of clients. Property (Relationships) Act anyone. That is fantastic fodder for lawyers.

I'm gutted that Prendergast is back for another term. Damn apathy. Not that I can talk, the local election being the first time I've voted, just had to get her out.

But how cool is it that Auckland has a cereal maker for mayor?! I'd like to think that's the last we hear of Banksie for a while...
What abut the whole Labour-NZ First-other fucktard party thing? to quote my social studies teacher "If I knew they were going to form a colalition with Winston Peters I would've voted green."

Know what sucks? This whole NCEA bullshit. It seemed ok. Now it keeps getting fucked up. Like all the marking problems and standards being too easy/hard. Government seems content to sit on their ass and watch to see what the result is.

I just wish the damned results would come out already.

Know what sucks? This whole NCEA bullshit. It seemed ok. Now it keeps getting fucked up. Like all the marking problems and standards being too easy/hard. Government seems content to sit on their ass and watch to see what the result is.

I've just been through the last level, having completed all three, and I don't know if I should be content with the fact that if I go overseas it probably won't be recognised. I don't know if I should be content with the fact that I may have achieved the same results as someone who picked up garbage to earn them. I'm certainly not content with the fact that my Year level was used as a lab rat to test whether or not it was good. I cannot tell you how many times I heard my teachers say, "Well, I know this achievement standard may be to hard/easy, but don't worry, they're trying to amend it next year, after trying to amend it last year!"

NCEA is a completely fucked-up system, it has so many flaws in it that it's not funny. It's confusing, it's illogical, and it doesn't have percentages. I want my percentages!

Well I've just completed level one. Get my results in 11 days. It's pretty fucked up when you hear they've had to remark all our English papers cause they made it too hard. Personally I found it fine but still. It shouldn't happen.
I would prefer percentages aswell. People much stupider than me had more credits because they just did lame and easy subjects offering lots of credits. Whilst I study away for chemistry and geography, they're learning how to build or some shit.
It's a mess.

Well I've just completed level one. Get my results in 11 days. It's pretty fucked up when you hear they've had to remark all our English papers cause they made it too hard. Personally I found it fine but still. It shouldn't happen.
I would prefer percentages aswell. People much stupider than me had more credits because they just did lame and easy subjects offering lots of credits. Whilst I study away for chemistry and geography, they're learning how to build or some shit.
It's a mess.

Haha yeah credits are stupid. A mate of mine will prob get like 6 E 1 M and 1 NA in english but I (who hate and suck at the subject) will just manage all achieveds and a few merits and get more credits than him. That being said building is a usefull skill and a lot of people make careers of it, although unforunatly in college it is generaly just seen as and becomes a screw around class.

Haha yeah credits are stupid. A mate of mine will prob get like 6 E 1 M and 1 NA in english but I (who hate and suck at the subject) will just manage all achieveds and a few merits and get more credits than him. That being said building is a usefull skill and a lot of people make careers of it, although unforunatly in college it is generaly just seen as and becomes a screw around class.

Some guys at my school who are unlikely to pass anything anyway took subjects which, combining the maximum number of credits they could possibly achieve together, did not equal 80. When this happens, you have to question the stupidity of some people, as well as the stupidity of the system.

Haha yeah credits are stupid. A mate of mine will prob get like 6 E 1 M and 1 NA in english but I (who hate and suck at the subject) will just manage all achieveds and a few merits and get more credits than him. That being said building is a usefull skill and a lot of people make careers of it, although unforunatly in college it is generaly just seen as and becomes a screw around class.
I have nothing against the trades at all. But if you're going into that area, why not just leave school and get an apprenticeship or something similar? Most guys I know that are doing building are doing it because they're not doing any sciences or languages or history/geography and need to fill in the subjects. They just choose 'fun' things.