John Key’s surplus

86 comments on “John Key’s surplus ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   15 May 2014 at 2:33 pm

   Hey the budget is promising 170,000 new jobs.

   “Compared to the December quarter of 2013, Budget forecasts show an additional 170,000 people in work by mid-2018, and the unemployment rate is expected to fall to 4.4 per cent.”

   Where have they done this before?

   http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-170000-jobs-evaporate/
   • Tracey 1.1

     15 May 2014 at 2:59 pm

     they cant remember all their lies and bank on the public not remembering either.
   • ianmac 1.2

     15 May 2014 at 3:35 pm

     What they seem to count is those who lose a job then find say two part time jobs means to Key that 2 new jobs have been created. Easy to claim 170,000 new jobs but hard to actually count.
   • Chris 1.3

     15 May 2014 at 9:02 pm

     Happy to be corrected but I’m pretty sure that first promise of 170,000 jobs is still on target. From stats nz:

     March 2010 (which they used in that budget) number of employed: 2,177,000
     March 2014 number of employed: 2,318,000
     Difference: 141,000

     Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPJun11qtr.aspx
     http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPMar14qtr.aspx

     Or am I using the wrong statistics?
2. Tracey 2

   15 May 2014 at 2:44 pm

   we have to pay 3.8 billion in interest per annum, and climbing, surplus of 370 million, and 1 billion extra spending.

   the promises about tax cuts are based on projections english has previously dismissed as “just forecasts”

   in whose household is having 37million in the bank but an interest repayment of 3.8 billion per year something to laud. other than english, key and gosmans of course…

   and ignore gosmans derail about 2008 projections, because he assumes too many thinga, conveniently leaves out other things, and selectively believes forecasts.
   • infused 2.1

     15 May 2014 at 2:58 pm

     Cool. So tell us how Labour would have done it differently the last 6 years?

     Debt wise, nothing would be different.

     [lprent: He isn’t the Labour party. Ask them.

     The post isn’t about the Labour party. It is about the National parties peanut surplus, their accumulated debt, and their budget.

     Next person I see asking this particular diversion gets banned until after the election. I’m interested in the experiment of winnowing out the stupid trolls with a darwinian selection procedure. ]
     • Tracey 2.1.1

       15 May 2014 at 3:05 pm

       no gosman, sorry, infused, you explain how its rock star economic management, without using projections which bill english dismisses as “just forecasts”

       how do you feel about labours suggestions for spending being adopted by english? he obviously doesnt share ggosmans, and your belief that following labour policy is a bad thing, is english wrong to have done this?
       • infused 2.1.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:19 pm

         sorry, I’m not National, so can’t answer, as per sysop.

         [lprent: Good answer. ]
     • Tracey 2.1.2

       15 May 2014 at 3:13 pm

       problem is, you got this line from john key and even gosman concedes you cant take the pm at his word…
       • infused 2.1.2.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:20 pm

         No, I get this line by looking at history. It’s not hard.
         • Tracey 2.1.2.1.1

           15 May 2014 at 3:43 pm

           its just a coincidence you never mentioned it til gosman did, and he never mentioned it til key did…

           its election year and in the world according to gosman, you cant trust anything the pm says, if he promises something not in the manifesto, you cant believe him. gosman 15 may 2014

           infused wants a cracker!
   • vto 2.2

     15 May 2014 at 3:00 pm

     3.8 billion in interest for 3.8 million people

     =

     1,000 per every single person in the land

     my god
     • Tracey 2.2.1

       15 May 2014 at 3:10 pm

       its labours fault because despite having no power for six years they have determined every economic turn this govt could take.

       john key and bill english have been powerless to this fact, dont they strike you as helpless folks too scared to alter things?
       • vto 2.2.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 4:12 pm

         They are conservatives. Conservatives have little value except as a brake on human advancement. Oh, and to accrete to themselves from others over time.

         That is the conservatives lot in life.
     • alwyn 2.2.2

       15 May 2014 at 5:57 pm

       Yes my son. What do you ask of Me?
       I fear that you are rather behind the times though. New Zealand’s population passed 3.8 million roughly 15 years ago. Unless of course you are assuming that there are about 700,000 married people in the country. If that was the case you would be close for the number of “single” people.
   • You_Fool 2.3

     15 May 2014 at 3:17 pm

     I was trying to work out where all the cuts were when I was reading about the budget on the herald, as there seemed too much of a good thing – it almost seemed like a Cullen budget. Finally I found out why, the extra 1.37 billion to pay for the increased spending and surplus is from an overly optimistic forecast in revenue for the year, a forecast which has not been right in the past 5-6 years as it generally over-estimates the revenue.

     As John Armstrong on the herald said though, by the time the forecast is found to be correct or not it will be next year and after the election. Thus this budget is a big fat lie / lolly scramble in disguise.
     • Tracey 2.3.1

       15 May 2014 at 3:46 pm

       can you post a link to the over estimated revenue?

       i think people forget that all budgets include a crystal ball spreadsheet aspect and think all the numbers are real.

       the smoke and mirrors of economics and accounting.

       as bill english says dismissively

       ” theyre just forecasts”

       and if i were opposition i would quote that over and over… even use guess or prediction instead.
       • You_Fool 2.3.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:57 pm

         Sorry, I might not have been clear – I was basing my opinion on my reading of John Armstong’s opinion piece in the herald

         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11255255

         Yes I know the revenue forecasts are just forecasts, and that the reality will be different. My question when reading the herald’s coverage had been “where is all this coming from” 1 billion new spending plus 375mil surplus without any obvious cuts (at least in the herald’s reports).
         • Tracey 2.3.1.1.1

           15 May 2014 at 4:19 pm

           thanks.

           gosman assumes all forecasts are factual.
3. mickysavage 3

   15 May 2014 at 3:03 pm

   It appears that the surplus is based in large part on Auckland Transport money being recorded as a loan rather than a grant. In days gone by, at least under the last Government, money would be tipped in to make sure that projects would happen.

   Nowadays it is a loan! Voila we have a surplus!

   “Road
   The largest element of the Vote is the funding for roading ($3,873 million or 86% of the total Vote).
   This is primarily the funding for the National Land Transport Programme which is funded from road tax revenue collected by the Crown ($2,850 million or 63% of the Vote).
   $1,012 million of the balance (22%) relates to loans from the Crown:
   · $750 million for cash flow management. This appropriation does not take account of any repayments made and the facility may not exceed $250 million at any one time
   · $107 million to advance the construction of the Tauranga Eastern Link
   · $100 million to rebuild earthquake damaged roads in Christchurch
   · $55 million for projects in the Auckland Transport Package.
   Rail
   Funding for Rail makes up 11% of the Vote – $511 million, mainly:
   · $198 million for the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan, the aim of which is put the freight business on a commercially viable footing
   · $192 million for a loan to the Auckland Council to assist with the funding of the Electric Multiple Unit package
   · $90 million for a grant to the Auckland Council to assist with the funding of the Electric Multiple Unit package
   · $16 million for metro rail projects in Wellington.”
   • tc 3.1

     15 May 2014 at 5:21 pm

     shonkey accounting from the masters of deception, nice work Mickey.

     A good question to the recipients of the funding would be what are the terms of repayment and has that been factored into future rate increases.

     Bring them into this as they’ve been played over govt ‘funding’ actually being more borrowing on them not central govt.
4. Psycho Milt 4

   15 May 2014 at 3:18 pm

   A tiny surplus. After six years. And how much does New Zealand owe six years later? That’s right Seventy Five Billion Dollars.

   To be fair to the Nats, it’s excellent that they borrowed money, built up debt and clocked up six years of deficits as a way of minimising the impact of the GFC. It’s what we’d have expected a Labour government to do, and if they’d gone with the alternative (trying to minimise debt and stay in surplus by slashing spending), we’d be in way worse shape than we are now. The fact that they’ve clocked up debt and deficits isn’t something we should criticise, it’s their attempt to blame it on the previous government that grates.
   • infused 4.1

     15 May 2014 at 3:23 pm

     And that’s what I’m saying. Labour would have done the same thing, or it would have been one hell of a rough ride. So why keep trying to bash it out?
     • Tracey 4.1.1

       15 May 2014 at 3:33 pm

       so national is really labour and adopting david parkers policies and spending an extra one billion on them proves it?
       • infused 4.1.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:55 pm

         Can you point me to what you’re talking about?

         National has become very center since they came to power. I don’t think anyone would argue that. Which is why Labour are having a hard time.
         • Tracey 4.1.1.1.1

           15 May 2014 at 4:24 pm

           you say labour would have done what national did. read john armstrong, read the budget and read labour policy announcements over recent months. national has just adopted labour policicies in its budget spending. national have just adopted direct labour policy to stay in power. so national stands for power not ideology per se, they legislate to ideology but speak to popularity. they are deceptive indeed and its not for a better nz, its to stay in powercos thats what drives them.
     • risildowgtn 4.1.2

       15 May 2014 at 4:04 pm

       Evidence of this clown? talking through your hole as usual…
       • infused 4.1.2.1

         15 May 2014 at 4:15 pm

         Yeah, just look overseas, clown.
     • geoff 4.1.3

       15 May 2014 at 7:18 pm

       Except you’re wrong, infused, and so is Psycho Milt.

       What Labour might</> have done is spent money on building public infrastructure to stimulate the economy. That’s Keynesian economics.

       What National did was blow money on tax cuts for the rich which hardly stimulated the economy at all. That’s not Keynesian economics, it’s the rich rewarding the rich and making the poor pay for it. Typical National party economics really.
       • anker 4.1.3.1

         16 May 2014 at 7:44 am

         @Geoff, rich getting tax cuts proved inflationary in the Auckland House market I understand. No trickle down there
   • Tracey 4.2

     15 May 2014 at 3:31 pm

     agree, and the invented idea things would be worse under labour.

     apparently, according to farrars budget stats, 51% of working kiwis earn less than 30k. instead of gasping at how they can afford to live, farrar uses it to lobby for tax cuts for those earning over 80k.

     given the drop in tax take, and the rise in debt, is nz evidence of a tax cut to the top earners resulting in a booming job market and an increase in minimum wage?

     bill english told employers to give people a pay rise, a few months ago. they seem to have ignored him and are lining up behind farrar for their second tax cut.
     • GMM 4.2.1

       15 May 2014 at 4:07 pm

       Tax cuts are a bad idea (for now) but good politics to throw out the possibility considering Cunliffe has signalled tax increases for the top bracket. There’s nothing you could call a promise yet – just whetting our appetites.
       Meanwhile, if my son continues his good behaviour I may give him a biscuit.
   • ianmac 4.3

     15 May 2014 at 3:40 pm

     Does seem to be at odds with the Nat mantra of “Labour just wants to borrow and spend.” How is that different from “Nats borrows 75,billion dollars?”
     • Psycho Milt 4.3.1

       15 May 2014 at 3:44 pm

       Hmm, true – if they’re peddling that “Labour will borrow and spend” bullshit, it’s open season on their own borrowing and spending.
       • Tracey 4.3.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:50 pm

         yup, in this budget they show they are really labour… and the only difference is they hold the govt benches. smoke and mirrors, its the great deceit. national voters ought to feel duped, but many wont. its the some that will realise and where they will take their vote that matters

         if english has subtitles, you could easily mistake his budget for a cullenesque budget, only more left.
5. Colonial Viper 5

   15 May 2014 at 3:18 pm

   Are we still feeding the mainstream misconception that Government surpluses are a good thing?

   Put another way – households and the private sector have to run a deficit (declining savings, reduced income and increasing debt) in order to provide the Government with this much vaunted surplus.

   Sounds good eh?
   • GMM 5.1

     15 May 2014 at 4:10 pm

     I don’t get it, what’s the better alternative?
6. Blue 6

   15 May 2014 at 3:20 pm

   Free doctors and prescriptions for under 13s now. Good policy. Extended paid parental leave, parental tax credit increased by nearly 50%. Another good policy.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     15 May 2014 at 3:30 pm

     Need a full employment policy for 25’s and under. You can’t encourage people to have children then let these kids go to waste for years in the youth unemployment stats.
7. Clemgeopin 7

   15 May 2014 at 4:00 pm

   This budget is a con artist’s hoax budget.

   Key and English have simply copied and dressed up many of the Labour’s social policies due to shameless political expediency and have pretended it is their own!

   The glaring shame is that IN SPITE of selling off our very profitable power assets raising 4.7 billion dollars, the sleight of hand manipulated trick surplus is so very awfully small. Imagine if these buggers had NOT sold the assets to primarily help their rich mates! That is the extent of their economic proficiency.

   They were not even able to make a dent in their ever growing 65 billion dollar debt! $65,000,000,000! $11,000 per every person in the country!

   This is a very inefficient, useless government full of spin and BS!
   • Tracey 7.1

     15 May 2014 at 4:05 pm

     sorry, its higher than that and at $16000 PER person
8. Gosman 8

   15 May 2014 at 4:00 pm

   Why would John Key apologies for a debt that was largely caused by the fiscal situation the current National led government inherited from the last Labour led one?

   [lprent: It is vaguely on topic, but is just a diversion troll. Lets make that later in the day shall we – a lot later.

   I have to make a “drop the priority” for idiots tool for myself that adjust the selection order of comments. ]
   • mickysavage 8.1

     15 May 2014 at 2:33 pm

     Why should we argue with you when you show no ability to comprehend what we say?
     • Gosman 8.1.1

       15 May 2014 at 2:50 pm

       You certainly haven’t attempted to explain what specifically Labour would have done to reduce the deficits post 2008. All you have done is state that Labour had a pretty good time in the early days so they surely would have had the same result going forward.

       [lprent: He isn’t the Labour party. Perhaps you should explain how the ACT party can plan on increasing jobs in the next couple of months? If I see much more of this kind of dumbarse remark, then I’m liable to insist that you do (and help you find the time to do it in). After all you expect other people to do it. ]
       • infused 8.1.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 2:53 pm

         Pretty much Gosman.

         At best, Labour would have the same debt.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1

           15 May 2014 at 3:51 pm

           More debt hopefully, higher taxes on the top 5%, and definitely spent straight back into local communities, local community infrastructure, and readying the nation for a post-oil century.
           • infused 8.1.1.1.1.1

             15 May 2014 at 3:59 pm

             I don’t have an issue with that.

             I’ve always thought there should be another tax bracket @ 120 or 150k, then have a tax free zone of 5-10k, whichever one works out.
             • Tracey …

               15 May 2014 at 4:10 pm

               which party is most likely to do that infused, and who do you vote for?
               • infused …

                 15 May 2014 at 4:16 pm

                 No party will do it. Pretty sure you know who I vote for. I did vote for Labour once… the very first time I was able to vote.
                 • Tracey …

                   15 May 2014 at 4:26 pm

                   vaccuous answer
                   • infused …

                     15 May 2014 at 4:38 pm

                     Kind of ironic that you spelt that wrong…

                     There’s nothing more to say. No party will bring that in. It’s been discussed at length for many years now.
                   • Tracey …

                     15 May 2014 at 4:48 pm

                     ive been reading too much gosman, his lazy spelling rubs off.

                     your solution is to vote for the party least likely to pass the tax regime you want? perhaps misspelt vacuous was the wrong word.
             • Colonial Viper …

               15 May 2014 at 5:21 pm

               I have a feeling that the ‘sensible left’ and the ‘sensible right’ of this country have a lot of common ground in making sure that NZ is well set up for the coming decades, and not just a minor pawn of foreign interests and faraway owners.
   • Lanthanide 8.2

     15 May 2014 at 2:40 pm

     I asked you the other day Gosman when you claimed Labour had a massive spend-up to win the 2008 election.

     Please can you describe the elements of this massive spend-up?
     • You_Fool 8.2.1

       15 May 2014 at 2:44 pm

       If I remember the right wing rants correctly they were:

       a) Working for Families
       b) Interest Free Student Loans
       c) Being Socialist
       d) Unassigned other spending, mostly given straight to unions
       e) massive taxes
       • phillip ure 8.2.1.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:27 pm

         and don’t forget the shower-heads…
       • Lanthanide 8.2.1.2

         15 May 2014 at 3:41 pm

         WFF and Interest Free Student Loans were not introduced in the 2008 budget. Gosman is specifically claiming a massive spend-up in that budget in order to ‘buy the election’.

         The only thing I recall is tax-cuts, which were smaller than the ones National subsequently delivered and had been trumpeting for literally years, so I think that’s pretty disingenuous to blame anything on that.
         • Tracey 8.2.1.2.1

           15 May 2014 at 3:52 pm

           gosman has been twisting the facts??????????????
     • Tracey 8.2.2

       15 May 2014 at 2:46 pm

       gosman asks all the questions lanth, you seem to be ignoring his rules.

       he might say he thinks nationals implementation of labours policy is wrong, maybe, but it wont stop him voting for the man whose word he says we cannot trust. see this admission in the other thread.

       very interesting first effort by armstrong

       the great brain robbery – national delivers labours budget

       http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11255255
       • ianmac 8.2.2.1

         15 May 2014 at 3:47 pm

         Tracey. An interesting take by John.
         As John Armstrong rightly says: “If ever an explanation was needed as to why Opposition parties like to stay mum on their policies for as long as possible then look no further than the contents of this Budget.”
         Exactly. There were some on this blog demanding that Labour released more policy months ago. But now they can get serious about policies that resonate with voters as can Labour.
         • Tracey 8.2.2.1.1

           15 May 2014 at 4:02 pm

           yes that piqued my interest too… its also an opportunity to show that national has just compromised itself to do what labour would do, just to get back in power…
     • Gosman 8.2.3

       15 May 2014 at 5:09 pm

       http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2008/execsumm/01.htm

       Almost 5 Billion in extra spending increasing to 7 Billion. There’s your spend up right there.
       • Puddleglum 8.2.3.1

         15 May 2014 at 7:04 pm

         The following is what the 2008 new spend was on:

         Personal Tax Cut
         $10.6 billion over four years will return a dividend to New Zealanders by:

         reducing the lowest personal tax rate to 12.5%
         increase the 21% threshold by $10,500 to $20,000
         increasing the 33% threshold by $4,500 to $42,500
         increasing the 39% threshold by $20,000 to $80,000.

         Economic Transformation

         $700 million capital for the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund to boost innovation in pastoral and food industries.
         $690 million capital in 2007/08 for the purchase of Toll New Zealand’s rail business.
         $325 million in Budget 2008 as part of more than $500 million to facilitate high speed broadband in urban areas and extend the reach of broadband into under-served regions.

         National Identity

         $276.4 million to develop defence capability.
         $165.2 million to strengthen New Zealand’s presence in the international community.
         $124.4 million to develop our arts and culture and preserve our unique heritage.

         Families – Young and Old

         Extra $3 billion to improve health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.
         $182 million to invest in more teachers and $180 million for more police.
         $446.5 million for community organisations.

         Business Tax Reform

         As announced last year, Budget 2008 funds $4.5 billion of Business Tax Reform that enables New Zealand business to grow and compete in a global economy, including reducing the company tax rate from 33% to 30%.”

         You’ll notice that the personal and business tax benefits are the vast majority of that new (operating) spending of $4.5bn in the first year.

         If we compare that election year budget with the 2007 budget (link from Treasury here) you’ll see new operating spending and revenue commitments of $2.5bn.

         Comparing a non-election year budget (2007 – which included the tax bracket indexation, you’ll notice) with the election year budget (2008) it is clear that the only election year budget spend-up was the tax cuts. Those that, as Lanthanide pointed out, were less than National’s promised tax cuts (which amounted to their ‘election year budget’).

         If Cullen had not acquiesced to the tax cut mood that National had stoked, then the 2008 budget would have been no more of a ‘spend-up’ than any other budget he had delivered.

         So, unless you see ‘tax cuts’ as irresponsible ‘spend-up’ then the Labour-led government in 2008 presented a budget consistent with its general fiscal management throughout its term (I think it used to be termed a ‘slowly rising tide’ of new expenditure).
         • Lanthanide 8.2.3.1.1

           15 May 2014 at 11:59 pm

           Thanks Puddle. Now we can link Gosman to this post every time he dribbles that ridiculous claim anywhere. I was quite sure he was furiously spinning the facts, and I’m correct.

           He’s chastising Labour for something that National forced them into the corner to do, and which National then turned around and did 3x worse.

           In fact I believe the context of Cullen’s “we’ve spent it all” was specifically in regards to the tax cuts, forcing National into a position where they would have to borrow for their tax cuts. Evidently Cullen erred in thinking that National would 1. actually not borrow for additional tax cuts on top of Labour’s, and 2. not horrendously spin and lie about the financial situation Labour had gotten the country into.
   • appleboy 8.3

     15 May 2014 at 3:11 pm

     What a prat. You show us the logic defying reference that says/shows increasing debt to 75 billion is due to the GFC. And no, John Key and Bill English don’t count. Moronic.
     • srylands 8.3.1

       15 May 2014 at 5:22 pm

       Gosman is correct.
9. fisiani 9

   15 May 2014 at 4:11 pm

   After the masterful Budget and the pitiful response by the Cunliffe followed by the oratory of John Key the victory champagne rolled out her on the back of the rogue Roy Morgan poll will have to be putback in the chiller.
   The question now is when will support for National exceed 50%. Watch the media flood the next few days with reminders of surplus, future tax cuts, free visits and prescriptions for under 13’s and increased maternity leave. This is the start of a tsunami of support for National as one red suburb after another turns blue.
   • thatguynz 9.1

     15 May 2014 at 4:14 pm

     🙄
   • mickysavage 9.2

     15 May 2014 at 4:25 pm

     Hey Fisi it is a bit early for the kool aid isn’t it?
     • Tracey 9.2.1

       15 May 2014 at 4:27 pm

       fizzi has become a champagne communist
   • Anne 9.3

     15 May 2014 at 4:41 pm

     You mean that thing on the telly this afternoon that 90% of the country didn’t bother to listen to?
     • Colonial Viper 9.3.1

       15 May 2014 at 10:50 pm

       I’d be surprised if more than 100,000 people listened to it. And I won’t do the math in my head, but that seems far less than 10% of the country.
   • felix 9.4

     15 May 2014 at 9:17 pm

     That’s funny fisiani, it sounded to me like the champagne had been flowing before Key’s speech…
10. Marius 10

    15 May 2014 at 4:25 pm

    if Key does another three year stretch and by the end of it can pronounce ‘Christchurch’ without fracking it up that will be good enough for me. I do have to wonder if he might be nibbling at the bottle between interviews. Drug test the lot of em.
11. BLiP 11

    15 May 2014 at 4:30 pm

    ‘

    Same ole, same ole. David Cunliffe got it right last year . . . “funny money rubber numbers”

    http://youtu.be/Rl-yc4Gk1eQ
12. Rosee 12

    15 May 2014 at 4:42 pm

    English is talking the Budget on Stuff now-
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/10047316/Budget-live-chat-Bill-English
    I propose everyone bombards him with actual questions. Not the ego stroking that seems to be going on at the moment
    • tc 12.1

      15 May 2014 at 5:29 pm

      It’s stuff, any questions not matching the desired narrative will not be seen…fearfacts R Us.

      The patsy questions and glowing endorsements are probably already prepared set to roll on cue.
      • vto 12.1.1

        15 May 2014 at 5:37 pm

        Of course they are pre-prepared.

        just a crock of shite

        The website Stuff’s largest owner is the richest, most vile, hard-core right wing bitch in Australia, Gina Rinehart.

        Quite why people expect objectivity from media businesses that are owned by full-blown evil capitalists I have no idea … it is dumb of the highest order
13. Tracey 13

    15 May 2014 at 4:58 pm

    steady as you go when you are going no where. w peters
14. Gosman 14

    15 May 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Test
15. Hami Shearlie 15

    15 May 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Bill “Me too, Me too” English’s National Government call it a “job” if you work for one hour a week! How is that a “job”? You could hardly buy lunch for one day with your pay? I think most people would like to see the stats for how many full-time jobs have been created. You know, the jobs that people can do for 40 hours a week and live on the wage.
16. Myron Gaines 16

    15 May 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Meh, I’m no right-winger or National supporter, but I really doubt the debt situation would’ve been too much better under Labour, given the GFC and Christchurch earthquake are largely the reason the debt is so high.

    It could’ve been slightly better under Labour, but I think it’s just as likely that it would’ve been the same as it is now.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      15 May 2014 at 9:17 pm

      As VTO points out here it would have been at least 20% less which is quite a significant amount.
    • BLiP 16.2

      15 May 2014 at 10:35 pm

      ‘

      . . . I’m not a National supporter, but . . .

      Hmmmm . . .
17. newsense 17

    15 May 2014 at 9:49 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11255001

    The hyperbolic rugby analogy ‘commentary’ of the year goes to…

    oh the lucky charms. A’twinklin in the sun….

    Thought occurs: by this vacuous logic then how many times did Labour win the William Ellis World Cup? Must have been a damn few times and through in the ‘7’s and some Bledisloes and South African tours also for the low unemployment and the paying off debt.

Links to post

1. Surplus – A time to celebrate! |: posted on 17 May 2014 at 4:56 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS