New billboard
Heh – got this tonight in the e-mail. Didn’t take long!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: HumourNew billboard
85 Responses to “New billboard”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Heh – got this tonight in the e-mail. Didn’t take long!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Excellent, but everyone has forgotten about the interest the thieves owe.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Give me 10 minutes, I have a slight correction to make to this one.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Ok, I’ve posted my “correct”.
October 13th, 2006 at 6:53 am
It’s not about interest. It’s far, far to late for that:
Farrar:
This overspending of taxpayers’ money is nothing short of cheating.
Darnton:
As the Speaker notes in her report, paying the money back doesn’t make its spending any less illegal. … the government must resign
Brash:
Labour has been caught red handed with its fingers in the till.
“What needs to happen now is that Helen Clark needs to take responsibility and she must resign
The only democratic course is for all those involved: the cabinet and labour party executive to resign immediately and permanently from public life
There is no need for fresh elections. The Auditor General, Solicitor General, Chief Electoral Office and evey the Speaker have declared Don Brash the actually elected Prime Minister of New Zealand.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:06 am
I have been thinking about it overnight (sleeping on it, so to speak) and for all of Helen’s accusing Don of money-for-policy and buying an election and trying to aboilish anonymous donations, isn’t that what she’s doing now?
When you think about it – it’s the labourites who are going to donate to help Labour pay the money back, thus the Labourites who ultimately paid for the pledge card and helped Labour ‘buy’ the last election.
Ultimately it is anonymous donated money that paid for the card and maybe won Helen the last election.
So much for no ‘money-for-policy’.
But I’m sure someone has probably already mentioned it…
October 13th, 2006 at 7:26 am
They should be paying the ‘compounding interest’ all Government department they demand.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:50 am
I am glad this is behind us – and I look forward to the making illegal of the National party’s money laundering schemes.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Toms: It’s not behind you. It won’t be behind you until Labour realises it did something wrong, apologises, stops the smears and lies and starts behaving like responisble democrats. That seems a long way away at present.
Just as Helen Clark had to apologise for Rogernomics before Labour became electable again, her successor may have to apologise for Clarkism.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:02 am
a long way from behind you Tom.
The illegal spending is part 1. That is now proven and admitted.
That the money was used to breach the spending cap and steal the election is part 2.
Do you think that is going to wash away easily?
October 13th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Re Helen Clark refusing to say she did anything wrong. I think I lot of commentators are missing the point. Helen seems is still very happy to take taxpayers money to spend on the Labour Party election and would do it again. If it was lawful or not, is not the point. She can’t see the difference between tawpayers money and the Labour Party’s
PS Why did the supposed independant Speaker ask for an outside legal opinion. Why not ask the Solicitor General?
October 13th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Toms, I agree that this issue might be behind those who are ideologically opposed to democracy… but that’s not many NZ’ers.
I’m hearing folks from both ends of the ideological spectrum say this isn’t good enough, and that we (and our kids) deserve to live in a country when elections can’t be brought. True integrity is evidenced when one defends the truth even if it challenges ones own position on a matter. I’m struggling to see any integrity in the way Labour came to office and still less now they’re clinging to it.
Should the makers of our law be permitted to break it (even in ignorance) and not called to account? I say that’s the beginning of totalitarianism. What say you?
October 13th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Rather predicatable from Helen & TomS re looking to ban anonymous donations. They refuse to accept responsibility, and they show how vindictive they are.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:13 am
“I’m struggling to see any integrity in the way Labour came to office and still less now they’re clinging to it.”
You’ll keep struggling because there is no integrity in the labour party.
Because they got away with it before, they think they should get away with it again. They knew damn well the pledge card and other spending was electioneering, but the took the money, spent it, and massively breached the spending cap.
They simply must go.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:15 am
David said: Why did the supposed independant Speaker ask for an outside legal opinion. Why not ask the Solicitor General?
Could it be because the working brief could be kept away from public scrutiny? How much were Chapman Tripp paid for their advice? What other payments have Labour party officials or executive made recently to Chapman Tripp partners or executives? So many questions the answers to which will help ordinary NZ’ers decide what kind of democracy we have
October 13th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Toms: See my blog for a graph which shows all this.
Then shut up
October 13th, 2006 at 8:21 am
It would be hard to prove that the extra money spent on pledge cards was what won Labour the election. Things like BrethrenGate and the National definition of ‘mainstream’ would have been more influential.
If you are going to measure money as a direct relative to influence, then you need to include the half million that the Brethren spent on behalf of National, in which case, both parties were evenly balanced.
The worst kind of ‘bought election’ is the one we don’t know about because it has happened anonymously and secretively.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:26 am
No Kent – the worst kind of bought election is one where the governing party raids taxpayer funds to get themselves re-elected and then, totally without shame, trys to tell us they didn’t mean to break the rules.
Do you have any idea how much money $800,000 is? It is a massive over spend and breaks the rules to a huge extent. This government is illegitimate!
Fresh ecections need to be called before Christmas.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Ken, I disagree.
Had Labour tried to comply with the rules when told they might be in breach, they would have had to shut down all advertising in the last days of the campaign.
In a close election like this one, no advertising and the fact that a party had rorted the fules would have been deadly.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Its worth noting that National overspent its television advertising (by about $100k if i recall correctly) by forgetting to include GST in its total.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:34 am
I’m looking forward to a legitmate election myself.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Interesting billboard, but incorrect. National repaid money identified as overspent, but that does not absolve the original overspending. I suggest you correct the picture, to maintain any reputaion for accuracy you have.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Kent Parker said: The worst kind of ‘bought election’ is the one we don’t know about because it has happened anonymously and secretively
The right for any one or any group to voice their disapproval of an elected Government is a cornerstone of democracy. At our last elections there were hundreds of examples of this. Unions, EB’s, blogs, heated debate over a few beers etc.
However the use of executive privilege and public money to secure re-election is evidence that this Government is bereft of integrity and lacking even the most basic commitment to the principles of democracy. It’s time they were held to account.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Heard Mike Williams on the radio this morning saying that they would be fundraising over ‘the next year’ to pay the money.
So I guess it will be a while before it is paid back.
Try doing that with the IRD!
October 13th, 2006 at 8:37 am
hisself,
You miss the point. The money the Nats overspent is not money that was stolen – it was their own money.
Unlike labour – they had two forms: Overspending using their own money, plus spending of (stolen) taxpayer’s money for electioneering purposes.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Either Helen and co. have done deliberately stolen tax payers money, or they have spent the funds, genuniely making a mistake.
If they have stolen the money deliberately they should be held accountable, and a new election should be held.
If they have spent the funds, genuniely making a mistake they are 69 times stupider than National, how can Winston and Peter continue to support them.
Incompetence or dishonesty are the only excuses Labour have, either way they should not be able to continue governing this country
October 13th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Not a fair post DPF!
I believe you have let yourself down on this one.
PM Clark like Dr Brash both “overspent” I don’t blame the PM waiting for the correct figures ot come out.
Labour are paying the money back just like National…Whats the problem????
October 13th, 2006 at 8:45 am
hisself,
the picture is correct, it refers to illegal spending by the leader as leader, National’s illegal $11k was spent by MPs other than Brash, likewise Labour as a whole spent nearly $800k, whilst Clark was personally responsible for the $400k – $500k from the Leaders fund.
“Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.”
I can hear the fat lady doing her warm ups.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Andrew,
Couldn’t agree more, and the time for being held to account would be in 2008. National is not squeaky clean or strong enough to unseat Labour over this yet. With UF, NZF and the Greens in the same cart as Labour they are all going to rally together rather than rock the boat.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Cadmus – National paid the money back immediately they became aware of a problem.
Labour have wriggled and twisted and now they say sure, we’ll pay it back, but we’ll need a year to fund raise. They have not paid it back, and the longer they take the worse it gets.
Also it was the Labour Party MPs who stole the money – why should Labour party supporters be expected to contribute? It just stinks.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:59 am
With regard to the Statute of Limitations on the election overspending – does the clock start when the expense is incurred, or when the cash is paid?? If the latter is the case, can parties book advertising to be paid on account much later – I think not! I hope that Labour’s “confidence and supply” partners remember their commitment NOT to support retrospective legislation!
October 13th, 2006 at 9:01 am
The question now becomes, how much influence did the pledge cards have in getting votes for labour? If the answer is “a lot” then we have to have a new election as this last one was illegally won.
Labour will probably need more than ayear to pay it back. They dont have a lot of members, and their constituency aint that rich either. Except for the unions and they are funded by the govt anyway!Look for the unions to start making “gifts for democracy” ie cash for control.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Sorry Kent, but 2008 is not an acceptable date for dealing with this situation. Just as waiting until after the Tangi was not acceptable in the Kahui case.
Serious doubt has been cast on the integrity of the last election. The only way of restoring this faith is a new election, and that means now. The only other way you could justify the parliament remaining for the full term would be for each party to remove any MP implicated in the misspending, and replace them with list MPs from lower down the list. Electorate MPs would be removed, and a local election called with another candidate standing.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:08 am
I also think a fair amount of kudos needs to go to our host , the inimitable Mr Farrar. There is no doubt your campaign and explanation of these issues has had a great effect on this event.You held the line, straightened out journalists and newspaper editors as to the facts with your accurate analysis. It is rare that one man(and his site) can have such an influence and I think its a significant acheivement. Clark , no doubt, is really pissed about it.
Well done.Email your address I have a bottle of Veuve Cliquot for you.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:14 am
I think we need to keep a very beady eye on Clark to see where she gets this money from. Labour don’t have the money. The lap-dog Unions don’t have the money. The hordes of Labour-induced beneficiaries don’t have the money. Where, oh where will Helen find the cash? Maybe we need a PI to follow her for the next few months?
October 13th, 2006 at 9:19 am
I read now that MPs themselves will contribute some to paying the money back? My first post in the this thread was basically regarding the 0900 donations. I can’t remember, but was there a limit to the amount of donations (anonymous or otherwise) a party can receive for the Election?
If there is a limit to the amount of donations a party can receive for election spending then aren’t the 0900 donations and other donations from the public toward paying money back for the pledge card (which has now been defined as spending on party promotion for the election) again putting Labour over the limit for the amount they should have been allowed?
In other words they are still using donations partly to pay for election advertising material, and this is putting them over the allowed amount?
I don’t know, maybe someone can correct me.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:28 am
david
The question is not about how much influence the pledge card had.
The question is how influential was the $440K of Labour Party election funds that were freed up by using taxpayer money used to give HC a platform to electioneer on?
The pledge card itself possibly garnered not one extra vote but the airtime spent talking about it may have suckered thousands into trusting what has turned out to be a bunch of rorting crooks.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Questions for the day
1. Are 0900 donations anonymous?
2. Will Mike Williams refuse anonymous donations towards the “repay the stolen money fund”?
3. Will the Labour party check all donors against their list of Exclusive Bretheren and tear up any cheques that have a name match?
4. Will Labour Party refuse donations from any Trust towards the “repay the stolen money fund”?
October 13th, 2006 at 9:55 am
On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:56 am
On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:57 am
On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:58 am
On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:00 am
On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Christine
Try using the refresh button on your browser to check if your post has gone through
October 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Kent Parker said: Couldn’t agree more, and the time for being held to account would be in 2008. National is not squeaky clean or strong enough to unseat Labour over this yet
Sorry Kent, but justice takes priority over convenience of schedule. If I were to be convicted of a crime should I be permitted to organise my family business, see my children through school, pay my mortgage the only then be punished for my crime? That, of course, would be nonsense as is the suggestion that we wait until 2008 before Labour is held to account. And with respect, the preparedness of the other parties to present themselves as a worthy alternative is not at all relevant. Justice and integrity first. Then let the people decide.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:05 am
what Andrew said .. aye
October 13th, 2006 at 10:07 am
what Andrew said – with bells on.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:08 am
All you Labour haters seem to miss a very important point about Labours election spending. The decision on what was included and what was not was not black and white and there is still considerable legal opinion that the auditor general has got it wrong. But unlike the auditor general the government is ultimately accountable to the voters of this country and they have decided to say ‘enough is enough’ and pay the money back. I think it is the right thing for Labour to do.
However to say there actions were corrupt and the election was illegitimate is just plain nonsense.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:12 am
One doesn’t need to hate anything to want something else. I want some integrity from our leaders and it’s now abundantly clear that we’re not getting that.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Mr Farrar, your fox has been shot, time to get a new issue.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Sonic, your beloved leader has been exposed as a fraud, time to worship a new leader.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:24 am
dear rocketboy
I really dont care about the money but I do care that in the big picture our country appears to be morally bankrupt. The socialists had all of last century to prove themselves and I didnt exactly see it as a resounding success. The “stay in power at all costs” is a pretty pathetic way to live your life. I am just pleased that we now have blogs where common sense can at least be debated without being edited. Will we get another election?
Common decency would say so but I wont be holding my breath
cheers
October 13th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Sonic,
You don’t get it do you?
Everyone is moving on. Moving on from “pay it back” to “New Election.”
The public are taking up the cry “Move on”, but it is being said to Labour, and means “Move OUT.”
If the right moves are not made, then the crys may change to “Move On Parliament”, which is usually accompanied by “Vive La Revolution” calls as well.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Forgot to mention
Do they still ask this question in schools
“Does the end justify the means or does the means justify the end?”
October 13th, 2006 at 10:35 am
New election?
To do that you need to win a no confidence vote in parliament, I would rate the chances of that to be somewhere around zero.
You could of course go in for some extra-parliamentary direct action, I can see it now, lots of men in suits chucking up a barricade.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am
“If the right moves are not made, then the crys may change to “Move On Parliament”, which is usually accompanied by “Vive La Revolution” calls as well.”
Yes I can see the centre of Wellington covered in throngs of SUVs all on their way to the beehive. Thousands of middle class balding overweight men brandishing golf clubs and cappuccinos, clearing their way for Don to hobble gloriously to the throne. Vive La Revolution indeed.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:42 am
So, the cry from the left now is “middle aged men won’t march on parliament so we’ll get away with being corrupt thieves.”
Whatever happen HONOUR?
You know, the Westminster tradition of RESIGNING.
Hell people have resigned for a hell of a lot less that this lot have got away with.
One option could be all the National Party MPs resgning one by one forcing by-elections.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:42 am
I think that we should just let National become the government for ever, why risk letting a bunch of uniformed, so called “voters” make such vital decisions.
Democracy is fine in it’s place, but the idea that a bunch of poor brown people get as many votes as decent, god fearing conservatives is just political correctness gone mad!
October 13th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Our generation didnt expect to have “to take to the streets to “fight” for what we believe in” as our Grandfathers and fathers did that last century – went to war to fight for freedom and democracy and a better world for us.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Labour was right to pay the money back but there’ll be no political benefit to them, merely detriment partly avoided, at huge cost. I wouldn’t underestimate what a terrible result this is for them.
Will Labour supporters feel willing to cough up to solve a problem that Labour created for itself? I doubt this will be an easy whip-around. It will strain the organisation and irritate the caucus; Clark begins to look less godlike, even to those who owe their position to her.
If the party manages to raise these election-year-level funds in an off-year , it then has to turn around and do it all again, immediately, for 2008. At the same time, Labour’s partner parties are all left in financial crisis. Which is why an early election is a pipe dream and a fourth term even harder to win.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I know this has been said by myself on other threads, and by others as well, but:
WILL THEY PAY THE FRICKING INTEREST ON IT?!
This is one thing the media has not dug deep enough to find out – they should. Ask Clark and Cullen the right questions. If the rules apply to ordinary kiwis – and by admission of “refunding” the stolen money, Labour now (grudgingly) agree – then why should they not be applied to this debt?
$800,000 at 8% over two years (until next election), they would need to pay back $16,671.80 a fortnight. This means an equivalent interest value of approx. $67,000.
Now that would buy a lot of hip replacement operations.
The new slogan should be “Pay it back…with interest!“
October 13th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Peter S, Andrew et al,
An election could only be held ‘by lunchtime’ if there was a majority vote of no confidence in the government within parliament. The public, least of all bloggers, cannot call an election.
As I pointed out, since UF, NZF and the Greens have all been affected by the same interpretation of the election rules then they are not likely to support a vote of no confidence.
Instead we are likely to see an attack from all four fronts on the manner in which National carried out their election campaign, and since, to err is human, that will be shown to be less than squeaky clean as well. At the end of the day we are all losers because of where our political processes have plummetted to.
Maybe the rules should be changed to handicap an incumbent government from getting back in, either by diminishing the amount they are allowed to spend, or by increasing the majority requirement to have the first say in forming the government.
Power, indeed, corrupts.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:58 am
No Sonic, political correctness gone mad is when intrinsically illegal actions by elected government serve to keep them in power.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am
sonic
almost right that National is the natural party of Government but you are really buying a fight to suggest that the poor and the brown would be somehow precluded from voting the correct party into power.
Funny that you should try to play a “race card” out of the blue (no pun intended)- anyone would think that you stood for seperatism and race based preferences.
surely not !!!
October 13th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Sonic you are as in touch with mainstream New Zealand as your deity.
Neither of you can tell us what issues concern us.
How much have you given to bail out your theiving mistress by the way?
October 13th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Sonic. Heard of Doug Graham? I thought not.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:11 am
You guys are correct, a vote of no confidence is one way to force an election. Not likely though given that the matter in question relates to the integrity of securing office in the first place.
Another option would be a few by-elections. There are three Labour held seats (Otaki, Rotorua & Hamilton West) with majorities of less than 1000. Perhaps those MPs will see the writing on the wall at about the same time Helen pressgangs them for money to help fund her addiction to power. A local businessperson might like to offer them alternative employment to help ease the transition.
PhillipJohn said: Thousands of middle class balding overweight men brandishing golf clubs and cappuccinos
Yes – that would be a grand sight wouldn’t it
October 13th, 2006 at 11:13 am
We can doubtless expect the smokescreens to get worse, as Helen and her cronies, poodles and other lackies try to divert attention away from their “sins” – expect a full-on assault on National re the EB’s, anonymous donations, GST, backflips on tax policy etc etc – expertly directed by H1 and H2 from the 9th Floor War Office. Anyone know a good PI with a bit of dirt to dish?
October 13th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Good moaning, nice to see the level of debate
has improved. Now…MANY of you have suggested we have new elections and even by-elections. While this would work in theory, it won’t work in fact unless all parties in this theft are prosecuted in a court before the public eye and and if found guilty, convicted as any citizen guilty of ‘THEFT AS A SERVANT’ would be.
Any MP,PUPLIC SERVANT, PARTY OFFICAL OR THEIR
AGENTS found guilty should be banned for life
from any political or public office.
On a lighter note. Ways to raise funds.
Hellen could whip up some paintings.
Gerry could hold a dietthon.
Winston a wingefest.
Peter D. a prayer meeting.
Jennette could sell tinnies.
Rodney could give dancing lessons.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:49 am
MM – what about they all resign. Honour and tradition and all that.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:58 am
MM
Please dont insult christians by implying that Snake oil Dunne is one
October 13th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
MM said: Any MP,PUPLIC SERVANT, PARTY OFFICAL OR THEIR
AGENTS found guilty should be banned for life from any political or public office
If ever there was anecdotal evidence that absolute power corrupts absolutely try this: Taito Philip-Field has the largest electoral majority – a whopping 16,020 on his 19,633 votes. Next of the list of safe majorities is Helen Clark. And then George Hawkins.
I’m sure all these folks are squeaky clean so I won’t bother assembling an abuse of majority index. Anecdotal, yes that’s all it is.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
There seems to be a widespread assumption here that this issue ‘cost’ National the election.
That is a rather large and impossible to substantiate assumption, given that there were so many other valid reasons not to vote National at the last election.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Younger Brother, that is true. Claims of a stolen election would only make any sense if Labour had actually spent more on the election. Did they? Certainly they spent more public funds, and they have now agreed to pay that back. But even at the time, was more money spent on electioneering by Labour?
A premature election isn’t going to happen, guys. Dream on. Just wait until next time, like everyone else does in a democracy. It may suck, but that’s our system.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
A confidence motion is most certainly not the only way to get a new election.
I agree with the “resign one each week” – reporting increased majorities each week would send a powerful message.
But what people are forgetting is who is really in charge under the law – the Queen. It is possible that Brash may make an appeal to the GG on the grounds the a) the last election was manipulated, and b) the public have no confidence in the current parliament.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
So now the GG is going to call an election for you?
Have you guys been visiting here?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077008/
October 13th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
HHmmmm just a thought,
Wonder what the PM’s response would be to a public petition calling on the Government to resign and go to the country ‘cos they have lost the confidence of the people.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Get out that table and start getting signatures then David.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
DavidW, I’m thinking their response would be the same as every political party in NZ has ever been to such a request:
“We will be calling on the public to make their choice, as to which party or set of parties they have confidence in, very soon – at the next general election”
October 13th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
I can’t wait for the fall out if it comes out that Don spent his leaders budget hiring staff who directly worked on the election campaign in the 3 months prior to the election.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I wonder if there is any mechanism for members of the public to write to the GG asking her to dissolve parliament as they believe the government is only there through corrupt practises…
Saying that while the PM may have the confidence of parliament she doesn’t have the confidence of the public!
Anyone know????
October 13th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
http://www.bit.tekotago.ac.nz/~sam/research/webpage/is/sspics/image71.jpg
October 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
“I wonder if there is any mechanism for members of the public to write to the GG asking her to dissolve parliament as they believe the government is only there through corrupt practises…”
Yes, its called a pen and paper (or computer if you are really up to date). Also, its a he, not a she. And, the polls still show that the current govt would still be in if an election were called anytime over the last few weeks – furthermore, the Nats have probably reduced their chances by alienating NZF, UFNZ, and, to some extent, Act. As Ben Wilson has already said, there is not going to be an early election. Mainly as there is no real reason for one. Whip it up all you like, it doesn’t mean it is a) right or b) will happen.
October 13th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
where do these guys get there time!!
January 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hi,
not really sure what you mean, can you explain more?
=> welcome to the forum!!!
but this is a good beginning: http://realbucks.info/Forex.php
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
One old american man win in lotto 250 000 000$.
I want win money too!!!!!!!!!!a-a-a-a
Give me money!