Roy Morgan and Sue Bradford

115 comments on “Roy Morgan and Sue Bradford ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Salsy 1

   17 September 2011 at 6:42 pm

   Its great to see Sue back, lord knows she’s a welcome voice of truth in a sea of lies, manipulation and general nastiness by National. Bennet is a fake and Bradford can expose that. Labour on the other hand have continued with the status quo depsite poll after poll watching National cut deeper into the bedrock of their support while the country refuses to warm to Goff.. Policy is great, but far, far more effort should have been into reacting to public opinion and offering a popular, likeable leader who can square off against Key… I think the entire party should be fired for arrogance and complacency. Jessica Mutch’s preditions of a few months ago will no doubt come in bang on target –
   http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/jessica-mutch-polls-could-get-worse-labour-4328514
2. Anne 2

   17 September 2011 at 7:15 pm

   Labour refuses to stick it’s head above the parapet! It remains timid, and seems to be almost scared of the MSM. I have the impression sometimes that the MSM sense this and, to put it bluntly, despise them for it.

   I am beginning to despair. They have by far the best policies (together with the Greens), they have the right messages, but they seem to have forgotten how to present them in a way that captures the attention and imagination of the media and the public. Norman Kirk had the gift, so did David Lange and Helen Clark. Phil Goff showed this week he could do it too, so why oh why did he wait so long…

   Perhaps I’m being too harsh. I leave that to others to decide.
   • r0b 2.1

     17 September 2011 at 8:31 pm

     Labour refuses to stick it’s head above the parapet! It remains timid,

     Untrue.  Capital Gains Tax was a very bold move.  Bold, and necessary to enable the other policies (like tax free 5K) that Labour want to introduce.
     • Anne 2.1.1

       17 September 2011 at 8:44 pm

       Agree about the CGT rOb. The point I was trying to make – not too well perhaps – is that Labour should have started to ‘stick it’s head above the parapet’ sooner – especially given the advent of the RWC. There are signs they are at last showing their mettle, but I fear it’s too late. Hope I’m wrong!
       • r0b 2.1.1.1

         17 September 2011 at 8:49 pm

         That will be part of the post-mortem if the election goes badly I’m sure…
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.2

       17 September 2011 at 9:07 pm

       CGT was a very brave opening gambit.

       Gareth Morgan has recently described what a very brave complete strategy might look like.
       • r0b 2.1.2.1

         17 September 2011 at 9:54 pm

         I quite agree!
       • aerobubble 2.1.2.2

         19 September 2011 at 10:06 am

         Link.

         The system is too easy to rig with a urgency gambit, why should voters
         buy into CGT that takes money that can then be redirected to the
         same elites as before. Without a strengthening of Democracy, via
         a upper chamber… …but they won’t consider that, for that would mean
         house of lords with dedicated Maori seats, and we all know how racist
         the rightwing are in NZ, they may get caught out from time to time
         but its plain to see. Key’s astonishingly bad oder at the speach opening…
         The game unites us as a people and this shate PM can’t even lift his
         game for one moment of unity.
         • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2.1

           20 September 2011 at 1:45 pm

           Strengthening NZ democracy requires a full fledged public and independent broadcasting news and journalism service, not an upper house.
3. big bruv 3

   17 September 2011 at 7:27 pm

   Anne

   You must be joking when you say that Labour have the best policies.

   It is bad enough that the Nat’s are borrowing a billion a month yet the stupid Labour party and the even more idiotic Greens want to borrow more.

   Do you really want to see us end up like Greece?

   Cullen and Clark were disastrous for the Kiwi economy, we simply cannot afford another tax, borrow and spend government.

   Anyway, the public will simply not vote for Labour until there is a clean out, nearly all of your front bench is seen as old, corrupt and tainted with the stench of Helen Klark.
   It might also help if Labour went back to being the party of the working man instead of being the mouthpiece of the stinking and corrupt unions.

   Labour used to be about people (remember Norman Kirk?) now they are all about academics who have never worked a day in their life, gays and union scum who are (in the words of one of your own MP’s) self serving.

   You guys really run the very real risk of being a minor party after this election, can you imagine losing the right to be called ‘the opposition’ to the Greens?, well, it is a very real possibility.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     17 September 2011 at 9:01 pm

     Do you really want to see us end up like Greece?

     A 0.5% pa land tax on property values over $1M will sort it mate, that and an increase in corporate tax to 33% applicable to every dollar of profit earned over $1M, so don’t worry your pretty little head.
     • big bruv 3.1.1

       17 September 2011 at 9:24 pm

       Viper you are a moron.

       An increase in corporate tax coupled with the totally unjustified $15 per hour for the minimum (unskilled) wage will see corporations leave NZ in droves.

       Not that I need worry about it, Labour will be in no place to form a government for some time to come.
       • McFlock 3.1.1.1

         17 September 2011 at 9:33 pm

         Better the corporations than the actual citizens, who already are leaving in droves.
         • Bazar 3.1.1.1.1

           18 September 2011 at 9:45 pm

           What a retarded statement to make. Did you even think what you were saying, or did the urge to make a retort override your critical thinking.

           If corporations go overseas, they take their income, capital, and jobs with them.
           If individuals go overseas, they take their skill with them, and leave behind a job.

           Corporations leaving are far more detrimental to NZ’s economy then individuals leaving.
           • rosy 3.1.1.1.1.1

             18 September 2011 at 10:03 pm

             That’s Bizarre, Bazar. If workers go then years of the cost of training is gone with them and so is the custom that corporations rely on for their profit. If corporations go that will mean there is a gap for SMEs, the growth of which a lot of people on the left and right think is a good thing.
             • Bazar …

               19 September 2011 at 4:25 am

               “If workers go then years of the cost of training is gone with them”

               The cost of training is considered paid for in large by companies via their tax. (Its one of the leading points lefties give as to why corporations should pay more, because they benefit from a skilled workforce).

               So by counter-logic, a company leaving leaves less funding for education, as well as fewer jobs.

               ” If corporations go that will mean there is a gap for SMEs”

               A gap?
               A company that moves overseas is one that simply moves. They retain their customers.
               If its a company that say builds engine parts for boats, and they move to Australia, there is no “gap” created, they’ll still be building parts, selling them, and retaining their customer chain, but the jobs and profit have migrated away with no benefit to NZ.

               If it was indeed a company that just packed up and left behind their clients, how on earth can you think of that as a good thing?

               There are 2 financial reasons why a company would stop operations in NZ and move overseas:

               – Either the costs of operations in NZ rose to a point where it wasn’t feasible to continue operations locally
               – It was more profitable to pack up and move then continue operating.

               And given that a company encountered those decisions you think its a good thing for that scenario to play out, so others can have a turn?

               Those others will have the same problem, it being either infeasible to operate, or have international competition that has an operating advantage (as well as looking at migrating overseas just like their successor did)

               Its better to have the companies remain and have a workforce shortage (low unemployment, high wages), then the other way around, where the companies leave, and we have a workforce surplus (IE: high unemployment, low wages, large government budget deficits)
               • rosy …

                 19 September 2011 at 5:39 am

                 You used the term corporations, not companies. At a guess a boat building company is very likely to be a SME, not a corporation. How many corporations that are incorporated in NZ do you think there are? Fonterra is one example, almost all others are SOEs or overseas-owned. That is part of the reason they want to privatise SOEs, I thought – more sharemarket trading. Didn’t Brian Gaynor do an article on that not so long ago? If we’re talking about corporations – most of their head offices are overseas anyway.

                 In terms of paying to train workers – they pretty much only pay for direct costs. Our apprenticeship scheme is so run down so workers have to take out student loans to train themselves, or for more administrative jobs the corps hire them straight out of university, which they haven’t paid a cent towards.

                 Big corps are only in NZ for the resources – e.g. logging companies, or for secondary services e.g. hotels, tecos (generalisation, I know). I’d also think they would move overseas for many, many reasons, tax at the levels we’re talking about would be a minor consideration. One of more important reasons would be a greater ability to grow in a bigger market. That is not going to happen if our skilled workers, who have them money to pay for goods go overseas, and it’s also not going to happen if we lose skilled workers and have to spend money to train up new workers, only for them to follow.

                 If you’re talking about SMEs going overseas, and if their customer-base is overseas too, yes I agree that would be bad. But once again, there are all sorts of reasons they’d go – lack of skilled workers might be way up at the top of the list.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     17 September 2011 at 9:45 pm

     Do you really want to see us end up like Greece?

     That’s an interesting question coming from a RWNJ considering that it’s the policies of the right that landed Greece where it is.
     • mik e 3.2.1

       18 September 2011 at 9:35 pm

       And New Zealands $76 billion Debt.
   • Hanswurst 3.3

     18 September 2011 at 1:47 am

     As I imagine will be true of many people, I got to “corrupt” and “Helen Klark” and stopped reading. Anyone who regurgitates this stale old bullshit about corruption that not even Don Brash believes has zero credibility as far as I’m concerned, while the use of “Kullen” and “Klark” is just schoolyard-level dickishness. It’s the language either of a troll or of a gullible moron, and neither really warrants reading.
   • HC 3.4

     18 September 2011 at 10:43 am

     big bruv: So this National led government supposedly borrows a “billion” every month? Honestly, it appears that you have as much knowledge and information about the true state of affairs as an earthworm has about managing the economy!

     The last figure in circulation has been about 380 million, of which about 100 million is not even needed by the government to cover present expenditure. They borrow that extra, due to the money available by way of credit from banks being comparatively low interest money. Hence they argue they better borrow that now, rather than later.

     Your attack against Labour and the Greens is in this case absolutely baseless and nonsensical.

     The Labour led government until 2008 had balanced budgets, near full employment and put more money into public transport and some other infrastructure than the present short-sighted one would ever be willing to do. They prefer petrol headed policies.

     Looking at the proposed higher tax rate of 39 % for those earning $ 150 k and more per annum, and other policies so far announced, a Labour led government with the Greens and perhaps another candidate in it will certainly deliver the funds to invest more in progressive policies, create more training, education and employment for youth and others than this one will.

     NZs problem is not so much government or state debt, it is PRIVATE debt of consumers and investors borrowing from banks to pay for what they want. A lot of it is in the form of mortgages and loans, to pay for a living standard that a country producing non value added primary products and serving fast food and drinks to tourists (on low pay) can no longer afford. Selling assets will not solve the problems, it will make them worse.

     It is the short sightedness and lack of true information of many (and you prove it) that seems to be the biggest problem with NZ voters.
   • HC 3.5

     18 September 2011 at 10:55 am

     big bruv: I concede that you were talking about borrowing per month, while usually we talk about borrowing per week. So you are somewhat right with that. Nevertheless, selling assets partly or wholly will not solve this problem, because the incomes generated from electricity companies will also be lost accordingly. The talk by National about capping share purchases to 10 % and particularly claiming that “kiwi mums and dads” will be “first in the queue” is nonsense.

     Look at the provisions of the NZ China FTA re investments:
     http://www.chinafta.govt.nz/1-The-agreement/2-Text-of-the-agreement/12-Chapt-11-Investment/index.php

     According to the agreement, which was signed by the Labour led government, but opposed by some supporting that goverment, Chinese (overseas) investors cannot be disadvantaged when it comes to selecting investors who may want to buy shares in any company or asset they wish to invest in.

     National strongly supported the agreement. So how can John Key and his party go around and claim that “NZ mum and dad investors” will be “first in the queue”?

     My impression is that they are quite dishonest to the public, by not telling voters that what they intend to be doing will not be legally enforceable.

     And then look at the policies National and ACT want to follow besides of that one. Little investment in public transport, slower progress with environmental issues and so forth. NZ will belong to the countries left behind again, with outdated public transport, while oil prices are set to go through the roof in the coming ten years.
   • aerobubble 3.6

     19 September 2011 at 10:29 am

     -You must be joking when you say that Labour have the best policies.

     National have no vested interest in the long term economy of NZ. Labour
     however h\is linked to unions and people who aren’t leaving anytime
     soon to live in Hawaii.

     -It is bad enough that the Nat’s are borrowing a billion a month yet the stupid Labour party and the even more idiotic Greens want to borrow more.

     National are borrowing because they gave three rounds of tax cuts to the wealthy
     to stop the wealthy from going belly up, because Labour and National (mostly)
     have been shoveling easy street to the managers on the NZ economy. You
     can’t make managers life easy, they get lazy and the bright ones leave for
     more stimulating jobs, as life is not about how much money they are paid,
     but making a difference, living a quality, being recognized by ones peers as
     better. How much money you have indicates nothing, you could have inherited
     it, won it in a lottery, or just got lucky and brought and sold lots of houses
     in NZ because the average citizen dis not see the bubble under their feet.

     -Do you really want to see us end up like Greece?
     Sorry, but are you a complete turd, we are up there in with Greece!
     Brash when he become ACT leader said exactly that. Please keep up.

     -Cullen and Clark were disastrous for the Kiwi economy, we simply cannot afford another tax, borrow and spend government.
     You also will recall that the government had no net debt, its National who
     have thrown open the doors, selling stuff, borrowin more unnecessarily, and
     give away large tax cuts to the top few. Oops, you aren’t seriously regurgitating
     the lies all over again are you. Frakking leftie.

     -Anyway, the public will simply not vote for Labour until there is a clean out, nearly all of your front bench is seen as old, corrupt and tainted with the stench of Helen Klark.
     It might also help if Labour went back to being the party of the working man instead of being the mouthpiece of the stinking and corrupt unions.
     You wish. CGT is backed by some mean monied men in NZ and not the kind that
     porked barraled it.

     -Labour used to be about people (remember Norman Kirk?) now they are all about academics who have never worked a day in their life, gays and union scum who are (in the words of one of your own MP’s) self serving.
     Yes, Labour is right of center partym well done, you noticed.

     -You guys really run the very real risk of being a minor party after this election, can you imagine losing the right to be called ‘the opposition’ to the Greens?, well, it is a very real possibility.
     Where are the extra votes coming from, for Key, Key needed ACT and ACT got to
     many seats since NZF dropped out, the whole farce of Maori and ACT imploding
     is due to the National needing a crutch party in November to get them over the line.
     Hell they are even talkiing about rubberstamping the Greens…
4. jabba 4

   17 September 2011 at 7:38 pm

   “I am beginning to despair. They have by far the best policies (together with the Greens), they have the right messages”
   what ????????????????????????????????
5. mickysavage 5

   17 September 2011 at 7:59 pm

   I agree with you r0b.  

   I seem to be living in this weird land where confidence is extraordinarily high, where there is no worries about the future, climate change will just mean a longer summer, peak oil pfft, and what overseas financial collapse. But that dole bludger down the road if we could just sort him out then everything will be fine.  And don’t start me about boy racers, the Government that sorts this out will get my vote forever.

   To be frank I think that Labour over intellectualizes everything, our policy releases are too complex and we may be too much into attack mode.  We need to present an alternative vision but with the population in this weird optimistic frame of mind I do not know if the message will get through, at least this time.

   But campaigns are funny things.  And people who I talk to on the street are receptive to change.

   Maybe the thinking part of the electorate are ready for a campaign but I do not know if they will be enough … 
6. big bruv 6

   17 September 2011 at 8:04 pm

   “Maybe the thinking part of the electorate are ready for a campaign ”

   Yes, and they are all voting National because the very thought of Labour getting anywhere near the treasury benches scares the hell out of them.

   It is bad enough that we are borrowing a billion a month, Labour want to borrow even more and have us in the same economic mess as Greece.

   I am no fan of double Dipton but he is a far better option than anything Labour can offer and certainly he is a better option than the idiot that Labour forced upon us for nine long years.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     17 September 2011 at 8:22 pm

     National are screwing the country (and gifting corporate and business interests with the money that they are borrowing in our name), while Labour has got a plan to make NZ whole again for future generations.
   • Salsy 6.2

     17 September 2011 at 8:22 pm

     That idiot you refer to left the country several billion in surplus with Kiwisaver intact and a comprehensive, performing super fund. Dipton and Key’s borrowing should terrify every New Zealander, particularly because half of it is for giving uncosted tax cuts to those who need it the least. If you’re worried about Greece, and still voting National.. you’re simply deluded.
     • Bazar 6.2.1

       18 September 2011 at 10:00 pm

       “That idiot you refer to left the country several billion in surplus”

       That idiot left the country with an estimated 7.7 billion deficit for National to inherit.
       But i guess it doesn’t count if you refuse to open the books and being vague, all while denying any massive deficit blowout by ACC, when it was later found to be approx 4 billion.
   • mickysavage 6.3

     17 September 2011 at 8:26 pm

     I don’t know how many times I need to say this bruv but Cullen paid the debt off.  All of it.  Completely.  Entirely.  You are parroting a CT bullshit line.  There was going to be a decade of deficits, basically because the financial markets overseas melted because of greed.

     But it was not Cullen’s fault.  Not that this will stop you from repeatedly regurgitating this.  After all for RWNJs winning is so much more important than being right. 
     • big bruv 6.3.1

       17 September 2011 at 9:27 pm

       Of course Cullen stuffed up Micky, he has the chance to fortify NZ from the economic meltdown yet he chose to squander the good times by bribing the voters with other peoples money, and lets not forget the train set and the massive hole in ACC funding.

       Cullen should be pilloried for economic sabotage.
       • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1

         17 September 2011 at 9:29 pm

         Cullen should be pilloried for economic sabotage.

         lolololololololol

         Cullen ran 9 straight years of surpluses, English has run 3 straight years of (huge) deficits.

         Get it right mate.
         • burt 6.3.1.1.1

           18 September 2011 at 8:36 am

           CV

           Cullen ran 9 straight years of surpluses

           We have had this discussion before about Cullen and his overtaxing the middle earners to create a surplus. Do you remember this thread:

           http://thestandard.org.nz/fun-with-numbers-tax-cuts/#comment-345039

           He punished his core voters – paid off the country credit card while personal borrowing exploded and the economy slowly shrank into recession – that was piss poor management and the only people it really hurt was middle earners. High earners rearranged their affairs and low earners had to to deal with the inflation that all that spending to stay popular created. Cullen single handedly cannibalized core Labour voters – now we see the rebound in the polls.
           • RedLogix 6.3.1.1.1.1

             18 September 2011 at 8:41 am

             OK if we follow your logic, Cullen should have reduced taxes during the boom times and allowed the public debt to remain unpaid, and then English should have increased taxes during the recession in order to pay it off?
             • burt …

               18 September 2011 at 8:58 am

               If we only ever have two options which must be opposite then sure; he had one other choice which would have probably had worse long term consequences.
               • RedLogix …

                 18 September 2011 at 9:03 am

                 Evasion.

                 In your world taxes and public debt can only ever go down. This is achieved by shutting down government.

                 Be honest for once in your life burt.
               • burt …

                 18 September 2011 at 9:18 am

                 OK, you insist.

                 Cullen should have reduced taxes during the boom times and allowed the public debt to remain unpaid.

                 No. The problem is with how Cullen increased revenue. Cullen had his ‘pluck the goose with the least amount of hissing’ approach to taxation. The easy option… The ones who don’t complain that much. Labour stuffed up here – they failed to notice the goose that hissed the least wasn’t the one with the most feathers. You seem to have completely missed the concept of ‘where the tax burden was being carried’ is my key point. – the overall volume of tax is actually what enables the repayment of debt – not the target it came from.

                 and then English should have increased taxes during the recession in order to pay it off?

                 Sure, English could have run a ‘tax the rich’ campaign, in a recession it would possibly be popular enough to get him elected. The rich would then all rearrange their affairs and the tax burden would fall to the next layer of earners and hell we would have Labour back wearing blue.
           • big bruv 6.3.1.1.1.2

             18 September 2011 at 8:51 am

             Burt

             Don’t confuse Iprent with the facts, he is not interested.

             Only Labour party spin and outright bullshit is allowed.
             • burt …

               18 September 2011 at 8:57 am

               I assume you mean CV bb ? If you really mean lprent then can you please be a bit more specific about which of his comments you are referring to.
             • RedLogix …

               18 September 2011 at 9:00 am

               Only Labour party spin and outright bullshit is allowed.

               BB. A brief examination of this site will demonstrate that this statement is completely wrong. Now I fully understand you are incapable of understanding this so I do not expect you to respond sanely.

               felix correctly identitified the issue here; you are consumed with self-loathing and are at present incapable of engaging with reality at any useful level of abstraction.

               The only good news is that your condition is probably self-limiting. One day you will likely look back on this episode in your life with both shame and wonderment.
             • bbfloyd …

               18 September 2011 at 11:56 am

               big bruv….. please….please…..please take your hand away from there….. it’s quite offputting knowing what you are doing to get yourself primed up for this latest diatribe….

               now you’ve gone and got burt all excited as well…. i suppose for some of the most simple minded of the reactionary bigots… you guys must seem quite clever…. but we all know which little blue pills you have to overdose on in order to get inspired to think up these small personal insults…

               personally… i still find it slightly strange that intelligent people would waste time and print space to try to point out the obvious fallacies you present as fact… i won’t bother to waste my own, … but there is no law(yet) that stops me highlighting the utter bankruptcy of intellectual vigour inherent in every word you inflict on the world.

               in short…. as i have said before….. keep trying….. you give me the opportunity to lampoon without a single regret the sort of people that represent our utter failure as a society to deal with issues like “grown ups”….

               tou represent the group of reactionary morons who blame the young for reacting to the environment they were born into…. who blame the disadvantaged for not being born wealthy…..who hate and fear the intellectual thinkers who would have us adopt an inclusive approach to society…..

               i could go on for pages, but i would rather hear some more ugly dribbling invective from you before i ascend past your comprehension levels…
               • burt …

                 18 September 2011 at 12:09 pm

                 i could go on for pages, but i would rather hear some more ugly dribbling invective from you before i ascend past your comprehension levels…

                 From what you have just posted it seems you will need to go on for pages before you stop just attacking us and providing any rebuttal to what we actually posted.

                 It’s great reading your rant, but apart from “bb & burt = bad” – what do you actually have to offer to the discussion ?
         • mik e 6.3.1.1.2

           18 September 2011 at 9:53 pm

           Big bully what fairy stories you spin ACC was just fine and is fine lizard features made up a story and the media fell for it.How come now the election is upon us he has reversed his story the share market has rebounded and Acc investments have bounced back so has the Cullen fund if shonkey and if dipstick didn’t have those funds to help them out we would have a Greek tragedy Old borrowing bill would have had to borrow another $ 8billion dollars no doubt they would be happy.your just an idiot big bully.The train set made more than 10% return on investment and would have been 13% but for pike river and the quakes in Canterbury.Cullen left NZ in a far better state than your borrowing dipstick could ever hope to so far he has managed to get less than 1% growth in over five years at the helm .Cullen saved nearly $30 billion dollars as well as saving Air New Zealand from bankruptcy.Kiwirail from bankruptcy now Borrowing blithering double dipping dipstick Bill English is making our country bankrupt.Take that big girls blouse bullies never come to anything in the end.
         • mik e 6.3.1.1.3

           18 September 2011 at 9:57 pm

           English has been finance minister for five year 98,99 2009 2010 2011.English has never run a surplus probably never will NZ voters are to busy watching the key sideshow soap opera to take any notice of the countries economy.
       • dave 6.3.1.2

         18 September 2011 at 4:31 pm

         ‘Bribing the public with other peoples money’ So did John Key pay for your tax cut with his own money Mr Bruv?
     • lprent 6.3.2

       17 September 2011 at 10:26 pm

       Nah you’re wrong. There is a genuine point there there. You are just failing to see it from his viewpoint. He is a really sucessful guy…

       Big Bruv wants to really look like a idiot, and he succeeds so often!
     • Blue 6.3.3

       18 September 2011 at 8:05 am

       “winning is so much more important than being right. ” Calm down Micky, Labour will never do either of these things.
   • Anne 6.4

     17 September 2011 at 8:27 pm

     If you are referring to Michael Cullen bb, then why did double Dipton concede that he left the books in very good order?
   • burt 6.5

     17 September 2011 at 9:25 pm

     The books were not in good order. English was either following parliamentary protocol and had to say that or he had no idea what he was talking about (which would be more likely?) .

     There was a decade of deficit predicted, unemployment had been rising for a year and was predicted to get much higher. The govt got rich by overtaxing the average worker – sure debt got paid off but there was no productive investment. No major infrastructure spending, just more and more targeted welfare to selectively placate the over taxed. The economy stalled and crashed – who would have guessed.

     Labour need to clean out the old guard, put them out to pasture. The other choice seems to be stay in opposition till the self serving old guard resign and give the party a chance of being credible again. For some reason I’m not surprised that old lefties hang on for far too long to the detriment of the party.
     • mickysavage 6.5.1

       17 September 2011 at 10:17 pm

       You guys are delusional.  How about you go away and learn a bit about economics and history and then come back and debate the issue rather than your “Labour stuffed it us”  CT line?
       • Draco T Bastard 6.5.1.1

         17 September 2011 at 10:21 pm

         burt needs to re-write history on a regular basis because his mind, what’s left of it, can’t handle being wrong.
       • Pete George 6.5.1.2

         18 September 2011 at 10:55 am

         You calimed recently not to do the CT line thing but you keep repeating it. Is that the Labour line?
     • Draco T Bastard 6.5.2

       17 September 2011 at 10:20 pm

       The books were not in good order.

       Yes they were burt. If they hadn’t been with NAct in charge for the last 3 years government debt would have been pushing 100% of GDP by now.

       There was a decade of deficit predicted…

       Yep because there was a Global Financial Crisis caused by the neo-liberal de-regulation of the last 3 decades – the same policies that NAct are now following.

       Labour need to clean out the old guard, put them out to pasture.

       Probably.
       • mickysavage 6.5.2.1

         17 September 2011 at 10:30 pm

         Hey Burt and big bruv.

         How about either or both of you prepare statements with facts and data and stuff to show what the debt situation was in 2008 and what it is now and how it is all Cullen’s fault.

         Honestly you guys drive me spare.  I know what the situation is and I know the statistics and I am really tired of getting into “yes no” arguments where all you do is spout a whole lot of slogans.

         So front up.  Back up your claims.  You can post in open mike.  Then we can have a real debate.  If you don’t you should apologize for repeated lies and smears on the best Minister of Finance we have had.
         • burt 6.5.2.1.1

           18 September 2011 at 10:31 am

           Front up for the chump that over taxed the low and middle earners mickysave.

           I highlighted his complete mismanagement and lies about taxing the rich here;

           http://thestandard.org.nz/fun-with-numbers-tax-cuts/#comment-344920

           In 1999 Joe blogs earns $37,000 and pays $7,215.00 (*1) tax. Using the Reserve bank calculator (*2) $37,000 mid 1999 = $47,186.73 mid 2008 attracts $10,441.38 (*3) tax.

           So their marginal tax rate in 1999 was 19.5%. In 2008 it was 22.1%. The stealth tax increase!
           …
           Today that same earner would be paying $8,310.10 in tax. That is 16.3%

           A fall of 5.8% from where Labour was gouging them.

           Who are you protecting mickysave, the party or the people the party claims to protect. By defending Cullen you can’t be looking out for both of them.
           • mickysavage 6.5.2.1.1.1

             18 September 2011 at 10:37 am

             Yep Burt how dare Cullen preside over considerable wage growth that put more and more people into the top tax bracket.  It was all part of the socialist takeover of the country, they were going to succeed in their cunning plan of making people poorer by … wait for this … making them richer??

             And can you explain to me how working for families is not a significant tax cut for ordinary kiwi families?  Your “rampant increase in tax spending” included returning a lot of money to ordinary people. 

             Oh, by the way, you did not address crown debt, just changes in the marginal tax rate. 
             • burt …

               18 September 2011 at 10:44 am

               Yep Burt how dare Cullen preside over considerable wage growth that put more and more people into the top tax bracket. It was all part of the socialist takeover of the country, they were going to succeed in their cunning plan of making people poorer by … wait for this … making them richer??

               You don’t understand do you. In the example I just posted the person earning $37K in 1999 became poorer by 2008 because their nett wages were not keeping pace with inflation. Inflation increased the govt’s share of their income though so the govt took a larger percentage of their income off them.
             • burt …

               18 September 2011 at 10:54 am

               Debt… If I overcharge my customers I can pay off my credit card…. That’s the sum of Cullen’s achievements on debt. He managed to pay it down – built nothing and watched a large proportion of his core voter base increase their personal borrowing while he undermined their real earnings with fiscal drag. Call that prudent !
               • mik e …

                 18 September 2011 at 10:13 pm

                 Burt your facts are 100% pure BS.He put in place {national have stolen the idea ]a planing strategy for infra structure, Several billion dollars aside for R&D[National cut it to the bone].Spent $5.5 billion on renewing antique infrastructure in the armed forces.$20billion into the Cullen fund , $5billion into Kiwisaver, paid of $20 billion in debt.Burt you better catch up with ernie at sesame st good place for your fairy stories.Nationals debt is going up every week buying voters is costing us $ 76 billion dollars $ 4.7 billion a year in interest.More than Cullens fiscal drag per annum.But under National we don’t have to face reallity just keep borrowing and hoping.Just sell off our best performing assets. to pay for motorways failed finance companies etc
                 • burt …

                   19 September 2011 at 7:42 am

                   Yes of couse they are mik e. They are completely made up. We never had fiscal drag, tax rates didn’t stay static for 9 years while inflation slowly pushed up wages moving people into higher tax brackets. It never happened at all and Labour are polling really well looking like they will easily govern alone after the next election. Hope you feel better now that the lies your glorious self serving Labour party are being repeated by all. Sleep well – see you after the election.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     19 September 2011 at 7:52 am

                     Fiscal drag was small compared to the income destruction present today due to the current Nat Govt. Continuing high levels of unemployment and wage suppression have taken a far higher toll than ‘fiscal drag’.
                   • burt …

                     19 September 2011 at 8:41 am

                     If you say so CV. I guess as long as “National are also bad” then it’s OK Labour plundered low and middle earners for hip-hop tours.
     • Deadly_NZ 6.5.3

       17 September 2011 at 10:59 pm

       The books were not in good order. English was either following parliamentary protocol and had to say that or he had no idea what he was talking about (which would be more likely?) .

       The Latter, English Has not got a clue. ( years of surpluses and way better unemployment figures Cullen) ( 3 years of Borrowing to give Tax cuts to those who don’t need it Rampant unemployment, People leaving in droves) It just makes me hope that Like Bullshit Boy, Bullshit Burt will both end up on the UNWANTED pile No jobs and having to see what it’s like in the real world. Oh and you always say that Labour is a tax and spend party. That may be true you have to spend to stimulate the economy. And thats way better than Borrowing to spend on Taxes. Like that economic saboteur Blinglish.
       • burt 6.5.3.1

         18 September 2011 at 8:12 am

         Did you forget that 10 years of deficits is a bad thing. I guess it was my fault and that’s why you need to attack me – I’m sorry I made our economy go bad by speaking ill of your glorious leaders.
     • Deadly_NZ 6.5.4

       17 September 2011 at 11:03 pm

       Labour need to clean out the old guard, put them out to pasture.

       Oh and the NACTS dont????

       how about Meddling Murray 30 years at the teat Williamson Smith English Tolley Wilkinson, and there are others. All had decades leeching off the Taxpayer and Most of them would NOT know a real job if it jumped up and bit them in the Arse. For some reason I’m not surprised that old Righties hang on for far too long to the detriment of the party. National need to Clean out the old guard and put them out to pasture, Or charge them for economic sabotage. See it works both ways BB & B
       • burt 6.5.4.1

         18 September 2011 at 8:14 am

         Great, lets clean them out as well. I like that idea. Sorry I though we were discussing how badly Labour were polling but if we are talking about corrupt self serving politicians then I’d say sack both major parties completely – they are FPP dinosaurs both of them.
     • bbfloyd 6.5.5

       18 September 2011 at 12:01 pm

       little bertie…. so you agree that english is a liar then? “protocol”…. what a load of specious bullshit! you know, if you have to make up shit like that, then it becomes obvious that your whole argument is fallacy….

       even for you, that is extremely weak…
7. gingercrush 7

   17 September 2011 at 9:14 pm

   Labour needs to keep it simple which is why their billboards are pissing me off. Its almost but not quite as bad as National’s ones from 2002. Give two ticks to Labour. The exact same billboards they use to have election after election. Instead they’re far too individualised and too much emphasis seems to be on the electorates.

   Next any future election policies need to be kept simple. And sell them. Its like they did the CGT and then have let it die down since. Poor form really, A good policy needs to be told in one or two sentences or 3-4 key points. Instead Labour’s policies tend to be like my awful writing. The same points over and over with too many distractions and just a mess.

   Do Labour even have a checklist of their policies at all. A simple list will suffice.

   I also think Labour could well do with presenting their team. I.e the front bench and show New Zealand who they are. Goff against Key is a weakness though Goff could do very well in debates (they’re unlikely to be groundbreaking and mean much). But team vs team and Labour’s likely looks better and far more acceptable to the public. Labour need to work against the Presidential campaign. That worked with Clark and Key but will do poorly for Goff.

   Honestly though, I reckon Labour are done and dusted. I see no hope for them and reckon those who will make it into parliament should just be focusing on what the next steps are going to be after 2011. I think that’s happening anyway.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     17 September 2011 at 9:51 pm

     A good policy needs to be told in one or two sentences or 3-4 key points.

     The problem is that a good policy can’t be told in 3 or 4 bullet points.
8. Nick K 8

   17 September 2011 at 9:31 pm

   Second miscellaneous item, news that Sue Bradford is standing for Mana against Paula Bennett in Waitakere.

   No, she’s standing for Mana against Carmel Sepuloni.
   • Carol 8.1

     17 September 2011 at 9:35 pm

     No, Bradford is campaigning in Waitakere for the Party vote and supports Sepuloni as the preferred candidate – she’s also campaigning against Bennett.
     • Deadly_NZ 8.1.1

       17 September 2011 at 11:10 pm

       Oh cool now that will be interesting No Comment, Pull the ladder up Puddin Bennet, is going to get her fat ass handed to her By Bradford.
       • Blue 8.1.1.1

         18 September 2011 at 8:07 am

         As long as Bradford doesn’t put a photo of herself on her hoardings, she may have a minor effect. If she does, people will be put off. After all who wants their children terrified of that monster?
         • Deadly_NZ 8.1.1.1.1

           18 September 2011 at 12:57 pm

           And have you seen the Latest Bennet Pic?? You can use that, as this is the monster thats coming to eat you. For scaring the littlies.
   • Anne 8.2

     17 September 2011 at 9:44 pm

     @ Nick K
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10752085
   • Psycho Milt 8.3

     17 September 2011 at 9:56 pm

     Will be interesting – the potential to open up the Maori seats for Labour again will be putting the shits up the Maori Party. And the potential loss of coalition support would be putting the shits up National too, if they didn’t have such a cute, smiley-wavy leader.
     • mik e 8.3.1

       18 September 2011 at 9:59 pm

       Dinasaurs Dons will be waging Keys tail.
   • lprent 8.4

     17 September 2011 at 10:22 pm

     I gather from some of the other material I have read that she has stated that she is only campaigning for the party vote, and is advising people to not waste their electorate vote on her. I wonder who the electorate vote will go to. Somehow I don’t think that she is going say nice things about that Bennett dingbat.

     Perhaps you should take some time to actually read before I notice you in a moderator sweep and prune you for being a stupid troll.
9. Georgy 9

   17 September 2011 at 10:53 pm

   I would love to see this happen –

   “How about either or both of you prepare statements with facts and data and stuff to show what the debt situation was in 2008 and what it is now and how it is all Cullen’s fault.”

   But I notice that slogans are continuously trotted out instead of sound info based arguments. Why are so many right wingnuts like that???
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     18 September 2011 at 12:53 am

     Because the facts don’t support what the RWNJs say, ergo, they can’t actually make a fact based argument.
10. Peter nickle 10

    18 September 2011 at 12:07 am

    NZ went into manufacturing recession in 2005. Only high tax revenues from workers kept GDP positive as government grew well above inflation from 2005-8. Hence this was the cause on NZ entering recession earlier than others incl USA.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      18 September 2011 at 1:00 am

      The stupid, it hurts.

      GDP is a measure of what’s sold in the economy, not the measure of taxes you moron.

      Government didn’t grow that fast, in fact, it was still less than what it was in the early 1990s under National and it still wasn’t big enough. A country needs those services that NAct are so keen to cut. Without them our society crashes and we see a rise in crime, ill-health and other social negatives all of which ends up costing us more.

      NZ went into recession after the UK and the USA. In fact, the UK and USA going into recession is what caused NZ to do so as NZ happens to be dependent upon it’s exports and they happen to be major markets of ours.
11. millsy 11

    18 September 2011 at 12:17 am

    Would love the right wingers here to accept that National closed more hospitals (to fund Bill Birch’s tax cuts in 96) than Labour did.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      18 September 2011 at 1:02 am

      That would be a fact and there’s no way that any RWNJ would accept a fact – especially if it makes them and their leaders look bad.
12. HC 12

    18 September 2011 at 12:23 am

    If those polls are supposed to have any slightest bit of authenticity in regards to people’s views and preferences, then it must all be going this way, because of some kind of “feel good factor” the PM gives people. After so many years of brain drain and general dumbing down by MSM the many desperate Kiwi battlers with maybe not that much political interest and insight bust feel fairly cool and good, knowing they have such a hollow, poorly spoken, useless and dodgy leader of the country.

    Some of the supporters of him must feel that things can’t be that bad, if even such an idiot, who cannot even hold a decent speech at the RWC opening, can become Prime Minister of NZ.

    “Intelligentia” seems to be shrinking in NZ, and that is why persons like Phil Goff may not even be understood by most, let alone get appreciated.

    Party policies do often not even get communicated by the media, the bias against the left is very clear, and austerity measures like in Ch Ch and now the waterfront area of Auckland do even seem to appeal to some. I put little trust in any of these polls, and they do not represent the mood that I come across. But maybe I live in the wrong area of Auckland???
    • burt 12.1

      18 September 2011 at 8:20 am

      “Intelligentia” seems to be shrinking in NZ, and that is why persons like Phil Goff may not even be understood by most, let alone get appreciated.

      I think you might be right, we all have trouble keeping up with Phil Goff – we never know if increasing GST is a good or a bad thing, decreasing taxes is a good or a bad thing. Assets sales are sometimes good and sometimes bad.

      I guess he’s so bright that we need to understand his major brain has this “red party policy = good” and “blue party policy = bad” even when they are the same policy – colour means so much to the truly intelligent and less gifted people like us think the actual policies are important. We will never keep up with that guy!
      • tc 12.1.1

        18 September 2011 at 8:34 am

        Burt, bbruv etc are like our msm, not letting truth get in the way of a good CT line or rant.
        • burt 12.1.1.1

          18 September 2011 at 8:42 am

          OK, prove I’m making it up – yes or no answers please;

          Has Phil Goff voted both for and against GST increases ?
          Has Phil Goff voted both for and against tax cuts ?
          Has Phil Goff voted both for and against asset sales ?

          In all of these cases was his vote based on which party were pushing the agenda ?

          If you get 4 “yes” then you might want to think carefully about prostrating yourself to defend such a hopeless leader.
          • felix 12.1.1.1.1

            18 September 2011 at 8:49 am

            Reminds me of a line from NBK:

            I used to be you, then I evolved.
          • deservingpoor 12.1.1.1.2

            18 September 2011 at 9:35 am

            As much as it pains me to agree with Burt, I think this is part of the real issue. Goff got to where he is by being a yes man and supporting whoever was making the decisions at the time. As a result he has a lot of policy skeletons. This leads the electorate to the conclusion that he is just a system politician, which he is and he gets hammered for people’s deep distrust of that system. Every time National do something horrendous (like privatizing prisons while streamling the justice system to make it easier to convict people) and Goff does nothing to oppose it, it leaves the voters with the impression that he would do exactly the same thing and is no different to National. Given the choice between that nice Mr Key and an over academic career politician, people will vote for smile and wave every time.

            Capturing the public imagination and turning it into votes is about far more than towing the party line or having good policies. Labour needs to dump Goff and elect a leader who understands this to have any chance of getting into power any time in the next generation.

            People know that Nact are fucking them over but Labour have failed catastrophically to stand up against them and provide the public with something to vote for. Great speeches in Parliament are not enough because only geeks like us ever even know about them. They need to be passionate, loudly and in public.

            Odious clowns like big bruv (your exchange with NickS the other night on depression is possibly the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen on the internet) are able to parrot the same bullshit lines day after day because Labour failed to shoot them down 5 years ago. Their bumper sticker slogans then got into the public imagination and cost Labour the 2008 election and will continue to cost Labour every subsequent election until they get a clue.
            • Bob Stanforth 12.1.1.1.2.1

              18 September 2011 at 11:26 am

              “People know that Nact are fucking them over but Labour have failed catastrophically to stand up against them and provide the public with something to vote for. Great speeches in Parliament are not enough because only geeks like us ever even know about them. They need to be passionate, loudly and in public.”

              Um, really? If people know they are being fucked over, they respond. Maybe, just maybe, they do not feel they are being fucked over? Or does this come back to the contention I see here all the time that the voters are sleep walking through to the election, they have been duped somehow, or are all stupid? Do you really hold the voters in that much contempt?

              Really?
              • felix …

                18 September 2011 at 11:31 am

                “If people know they are being fucked over, they respond.”

                Awww, that’s precious.
                • Bob Stanforth …

                  18 September 2011 at 11:34 am

                  What, cant argue with fact, so do your arse impression?
                  • felix …

                    18 September 2011 at 11:42 am

                    Not a fact Bob, just your opinion. And it’s one that I happen to find charmingly naive.
                    • Bob Stanforth …

                      18 September 2011 at 12:11 pm

                      Oh, bless, you’re trying to be condescending. Go back to counting RM polls, takes less time and energy, you might make it all the way to 26…and then stop…
                    • felix …

                      18 September 2011 at 12:19 pm

                      No! Try not. Do, or do not; there is no try.
              • deservingpoor …

                18 September 2011 at 4:54 pm

                “Or does this come back to the contention I see here all the time that the voters are sleep walking through to the election, they have been duped somehow, or are all stupid? Do you really hold the voters in that much contempt”

                No

                But most people don’t pay much attention to politics. It just isn’t that interesting to most people.

                Its actually irrelevant whether people are actually getting screwed over or not. It is up to the opposition party to direct (and if necessary to create and then direct) any feeling of unease in the electorate and turn it into votes. This is surely generically true of what it means to be in opposition, whether you are left leaning or a RWNJ.

                National did a fantastic job of this, creating the Nanny state meme over things like lightbulbs that save you money on your power bill.
                Labour are failing to be an opposition and won’t get back into power until they start being an opposition.
            • HC 12.1.1.1.2.2

              18 September 2011 at 11:30 am

              “Great speeches in Parliament are not enough because only geeks like us ever even know about them. They need to be passionate, loudly and in public.”

              This is one major matter of concern!!!

              It is nice to see some opposition members hold good speeches and direct well thought out and directed questions at government ministers in the House, in order to expose their hypocrisy, incompetence and flawed policies, but what is needed is to address the public in as many meetings as possible.

              Perhaps also some walkabouts in the streets, on markets and in malls may be worth it?

              There may be a few hundred or a few thousand that follow question time and debates in Parliament, but those are a tiny majority.

              Many in the public would not even know the name of senior government or opposition politicians, let alone what they stand for. Daily distractions, pre-occupation with economic survival, now the RWC and consumerist influences do lead to most not being informed and in tune. The media does do its bit of failings and also pre-occupation with personality and trivial issues to make things worse.
      • HC 12.1.2

        18 September 2011 at 11:18 am

        Burt: I have no problem understanding Phil Goff, so your admission may be self-explanatory in many ways. Otherwise I tend to give a person, who conceded having held the wrong view and position on some matters in the past, and thus corrected his approach more credit, than others, who propagate measures that have led to this country being largely foreign owned, with a mostly basic economy producing largely lowly processed primary products, low paid services to tourists and getting high fees paying overseas students come here to be trained by often “imported” foreign tutors. Selling assets to pay for debt service, build holdiay motorways, schools and hospital wards, while forfeiting income streams does simply sound very stupid indeed.

        Well, we know who will get blamed for the high government debt, don’t we. It will be public servants and beneficiaries, like usually.

        This country needs radical changes, and that cannot include spending billions on motorways and neglecting public transport. Wait a few more years, until petrol will cost $ 5 per litre, then NZers will wonder what the hell has hit them. I suppose a National led government will then also resort to “emergency legislation” to run this country, because that is what it seems to be doing when it runs out of ideas and has no answers and solutions to offer.
13. chris73 13

    18 September 2011 at 8:59 am

    “Maybe its an RWC boost, maybe its a rogue, or maybe the constant “Labour can’t win” message is having an effect at last.”

    Theres the problem, this poll isn’t surprising to anyone thats been watching polls for the last couple of years

    Its not the world cup, its not a rogue poll but possibly the people know Labour can’t win may have something to do with it

    What it comes down to is that most left wing supporters (especially on here) just dont get that Labour hasn’t done enough to win back supporters that they lost by the actions of the previous govt

    Labour was booted out and the people wanted to see heads roll and careers end, clean break if you will. It didn’t happen.

    Maybe after the shellacking Labour will recieve at the next election you’ll get it together to remove the (old) dead wood and give your supporters a unified team to support
14. deservingpoor 14

    18 September 2011 at 9:44 am

    “Labour was booted out and the people wanted to see heads roll and careers end, clean break if you will. It didn’t happen”

    Exactly.
15. Nick k 15

    18 September 2011 at 11:31 am

    From the Herald:

    .She said the Green Party candidate had also publicly endorsed her, telling people at a community meeting to give their electorate vote to Ms Sepuloni. The Green Party candidate got 1676 votes last election – more than Ms Bennett’s winning margin.

    Bennett won with a margin of 632 in 2008. I am certain Bradford’s name on the ballot paper will guarantee some of those candidate votes will go from the Greens to Bradford, despite what a candidate says at a meeting – let’s say 500. Bradford will also, by default, pick up other disgruntled votes – let’s say 500.

    So Bradford gets 1,000 candidate votes, the Green candidate gets 800 (a total of 1,800 – more than the Green candidate got last time) and Sepuloni is left wondering “what the F*** happened to *her* votes”. This wouldn’t matter so much in a seat that isn’t so marginal, but when you’re arguing over 632 votes, it will.

    The other factors are this: MMP historical voting patterns show that the Right is smarter at splitting its vote. How is three left wing candidates good for enabling one left wing candidate to win? Also, Bradford is one of the best campaigners in the country. Her name, voice and campaign will ensure she gets vital candidate votes, despite her best intentions.

    Most votes are won in the middle, not on the fringes. Remember Chris Trotter’s “Waitakere Man”? Sepuloni needs to take votes from those voters to win. I am quite confident she won’t do it.

    Disclaimer: I don’t live anywhere near Waitakere.

    PS: Feel free to call me a troll, Lynn P. Can’t see it myself

    PPS: If I am proven wrong I will gladly turn up here and admit it.
16. Roger 16

    18 September 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Another reason could be the problem that John Key and many cabinet ministers only do photo opportunities and soft media interviews on mainstream shows and publications that do not provide or go into depth of analysis or policy. When they look like they could be in for a tough time they are nowhere to be found. Examples include their unwillingness to do RNZ interviews on morning report and their no-show for a debate on asset sales on Q&A.

    Sadly most people are limitied to mass media at primetime for their information so are not privy to the real issues and how National is playing the media. The appearance is that since the National government is seldom brought heavily to account for its failings in the eyes of most, therefore things are running smoothly and there is nothing to be held accountable for.

    This creates the image of people thinking that the government has had a recession and natural disasters as well as man-made disasters of national significance and John Key has handled it so well. When people say this I usually ask them what exactly this government has done to help.
17. Brett Dale 17

    18 September 2011 at 3:25 pm

    The poll looks accurate, I just think the Greens are too high, once people find out that all the communists have got to Te Mana, they will leave the greens in big numbers, Te Mana will make five percent in this election, the Greens wont.
    • happynz 17.1

      19 September 2011 at 7:24 am

      Communists? For real? How quaint in a 1950s John Birch Society flashback sorta way…
      • Brett Dale 17.1.1

        19 September 2011 at 10:31 am

        happynz:

        They are openly communists though, I wouldnt call them quaint.
        • framu 17.1.1.1

          19 September 2011 at 3:20 pm

          whos ‘they’ brett?

          who exactly are these communists?
          • Brett Dale 17.1.1.1.1

            20 September 2011 at 11:09 am

            Bradford for one.
          • Brett Dale 17.1.1.1.2

            20 September 2011 at 12:14 pm

            We now have NewZealand’s biggest hypocrite, John Minto leading a “Minto for Mana” group.
            • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1.2.1

              20 September 2011 at 1:43 pm

              New Zealand’s biggest hypocrite is someone who thinks that the country is in dire levels of state debt, and then options electric seat warmers for his Ministerial BMW.
          • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1.3

            20 September 2011 at 1:42 pm

            I’m a Democratic Socialist, Brett, and I suspect you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about re: ‘communism’ (or ‘capitalism’ for that matter).
18. RedandBlack 18

    18 September 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Well said Roger – and the polls are dishonest for excluding the don’t knows anyway.
    • Anne 18.1

      18 September 2011 at 7:30 pm

      Dishonest polls in support of dishonest government.
19. Brett Dale 19

    18 September 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Geeze Louise.
20. Kevin Campbell 20

    19 September 2011 at 12:02 pm

    The good news is that Colin Craig is standing in Rodney and his independent polling shows him way ahead. It would be great for Rodney to have the leader of a new party to represent themin their electorate.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS