Comments on: The election date

By: OECD rank 22 kiwi

OECD rank 22 kiwi — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:12:34 +0000

Labour should fall on its sword and give the electorate a date now.

Come on Hels, give us a date, or are you chicken?

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:35:03 +0000

Can someone explain when the 3 years is calculated from and to?

The three years is from when Parliament starts. It starts the day the election result is announced. Three years later it ends, the Parliament is dissolved and it cannot sit any more.

By: expat

expat — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:28:50 +0000

4 weeks after the budget max.

Lolly scramble time.

Just seen the cunliffe health lolly scramble announced, expect more.

By: emmess

emmess — Sun, 18 May 2008 10:19:21 +0000

>>The maximum term of Parliament is three years. An early election doesn’t change that.

Ok so it was 3 years 2 months
Can someone explain when the 3 years is calculated from and to?
Is it parliaments first sitting day until the day it is disolved?
(I probably should google it)

By: george

george — Sun, 18 May 2008 07:55:11 +0000

stuarts-burger says:

“Hey Don Brash said he could understand the Americans invading Iraq and Afghanistan it was Helen who sent troops there . Most of the publicity was about how we send troop to help with reconstruction. Of course when things in Iraq got a bit to hot for Helen and the Kiwis need to be carrying arms or were shown to be working with armed British Guards she pulled them out.
Helen only sends good troops to help the people you see not bad fighting ones who may get hurt or even worst killed.
This was typical hypocrisy by Helen because of course it was her government that also sent in the SAS to Afghanistan and one of the troopers act in such away in such a fire fight with determine enemy that he was awarded the V.C.”

Yes, everyone in the defence world in Wellington knows our SAS were in Iraq from day one (or slightly before) wearing British uniforms. Helen sent our troops to a war in secret because she wanted to win kudos from Bush and Blair but be able to deny involvement back home. Sick, sick sick.

By: side show bob

side show bob — Sun, 18 May 2008 07:32:23 +0000

I hope Dear Leader makes up her mine soon, I have a pallet of piss to order, a few boxes of rough red, some rum, some vodka, some gin and I guess I better get a couple of bottles of cider for the wife. It should be a good day !!!!!!!!!!!!!.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Sun, 18 May 2008 06:37:47 +0000

It pissed me off a bit in ‘05.
For a Labour second term they got an extra 3 months, because of the snap election called in 2002

The maximum term of Parliament is three years. An early election doesn’t change that.

By: emmess

emmess — Sun, 18 May 2008 04:01:18 +0000

Well, I kind of expected that sort of response from somebody
And I understand it

In my defence I follow statistics and reports from Iraq very closely and I have never made a prediction like that before
Iraqi units doing virtually all the fighting is something that was talked about for a very long time but never eventuated until the crackdown in Basra. Unless something goes seriously wrong in the Mosul offensive, it difficult to see why people should be pessimistic. If anyone knows of any other regions in Iraq where trouble is likely to occur please let me know?

By: decadentmeerkat

decadentmeerkat — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:56:31 +0000

“As for Iraq, it’ll be virtually over by the end of the year”

Over by Christmas, eh? Where have I heard that before …

Or will we have to wait a few more Friedman Units or so?

By: emmess

emmess — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:32:05 +0000

It pissed me off a bit in ‘05.
For a Labour second term they got an extra 3 months, because of the snap election called in 2002
If a snap election is called a government shouldn’t get extra time in the next term.
It would mean we would only have 2 more months to put up with this bloody lot

As for Iraq, it’ll be virtually over by the end of the year
Maliki has smashed the Sadrists in Basra, forced them in submission in Sadr City and now is launching an offensive against the last remaining Al Qaeda stronghold in and around Mosul.
All done with Iraqi troops, and using American air cover only.
American troop deaths will be down to single digits per month and large troop withdrawls may have already begun

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:23:17 +0000

While we’re on the topic and at the risk of being accused of link whoring, here’s the best election announcement ever.

http://100wordblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/muldoon-nostalgia/

By: Southern Raider

Southern Raider — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:33:07 +0000

The sooner the better. How about next weekend?

It would also give them less time to get all their newly imported voters onto the electoral role.

By: slightlyrighty

slightlyrighty — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:11:40 +0000

Clark could call an early election as a purely popular move. It’d make me happy for one.

By: first time caller

first time caller — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:45:59 +0000

As if Clark is going to care if a new Govt has to be formed on Xmas eve…she wont turn up

By: tim barclay

tim barclay — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:41:51 +0000

The last saturday in November is FAR TOO late. It places forming a Government right on Xmas, better to have it the first saturday in November or even better the first saturday in October with the campaign running through September, which seems about fine. On voting systems I would be strongly opposed to STV where everybody’s SECOND choice is at risk of being elected. I favour SM with 80 General seats, the existing maori seats and 40 PR seats with no 5% threashold. That system would give the Greens 2 seats which about right, Peters would have 1-2 seats (far too many) and the Maori Party 7 electorate seats and possibly 2 further seats – quite a lot but you cannot abolish the Maori seats without considering whether there should be a special maori assembly.

By: stuarts-burgers

stuarts-burgers — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:04:49 +0000

Hey Don Brash said he could understand the Americans invading Iraq and Afghanistan it was Helen who sent troops there . Most of the publicity was about how we send troop to help with reconstruction. Of course when things in Iraq got a bit to hot for Helen and the Kiwis need to be carrying arms or were shown to be working with armed British Guards she pulled them out.
Helen only sends good troops to help the people you see not bad fighting ones who may get hurt or even worst killed.
This was typical hypocrisy by Helen because of course it was her government that also sent in the SAS to Afghanistan and one of the troopers act in such away in such a fire fight with determine enemy that he was awarded the V.C.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:01:08 +0000

“Suddenly our media think that THEY should focus on Iraq as well, and then remind the public that National wanted to invade Iraq. That would be what the ninth floor would hope at least.”

Yeah, good analysis. It will be something like that. If not Iraq then something else that the left media dream up. Some substitute for “Brash met with the Brethren and lied about it”..

Its why you should never give the left a beachhead. On every point they try to make political capital on they need to be effectively confronted, and that includes Iraq. They’re always wrong, so its easy. The real work is in getting the truth out past their partisan propagandists in the mainstream media. Which is why left wing media people should be one of the primary focuses of National’s campaign.

National need to make it clear to the public that those posing as objective commentators are in most cases far from it. The claim that journalists are automatically by means of their trade objective has been shown on so many occasions to be partisan rubbish. National has to publicise by some means the fact that most journalists are advocates for the Labour party. (or often the Green/ Watermelon party) (In most cases because they don’t know any better.) It is important for the democratic process and free and fair elections that the small amount of credibility these partisan leftist charlatans still cling to is effectively countered.

The biggest enemy to truth and democracy in New Zealand is the TV One newsroom and current affairs commentary division. They have nobody able to provide analysis from a right wing perspective. (although from some reports, there’s some guy hidden away on breakfast TV who might be changing that)

By: G

Sat, 17 May 2008 22:38:50 +0000

I would go for November 8 or 15 (the last possible date). The international media will be focused on the American election and quite possibly the debate between Obama and McCain on Iraq. Suddenly our media think that THEY should focus on Iraq as well, and then remind the public that National wanted to invade Iraq. That would be what the ninth floor would hope at least.

By: expat

expat — Sat, 17 May 2008 21:04:50 +0000

Nov 5th sounds like an apt date. Hulun will ban fireworks though….

By: goodgod

goodgod — Sat, 17 May 2008 21:00:57 +0000

Speaking as someone who participates in a strategic sport, I would say that if I left the application of strategy to this late in the game I’d just be kidding myself. Going early or late, it’ll make no difference. Talking about strategy at this stage is a joke. Where was the strategy when the EFB was being discussed? Oh that’s right, it was this: “…throw one of my oldest colleagues to the wolves and hope that nobody notices. That way she’ll never be leader.” Some strategy. And where was this brilliant general while her plans to cling to power were unravelling? She wasn’t in the debating chamber. The idea of clinging to power is not so much a strategy, since a strategy requires skill and thought, but a pose. We’ve seen less and less of the besieged general in the house this year. She’s holed-up in the bunker.