National
November 28th, 2011 at 9:33 am by David FarrarToday will be a series of posts on each party, looking at what happened, how they did, and their challenges ahead.
MPs in
Scott Simpson (Coromandel), Maggie Barry (North Shore), Mike Sabin (Northland), Ian McKelvie (Rangitikei), Mark Mitchell (Rodney), Jian Yang (List), Alfred Ngaro (List).
MPs out
Paul Quinn. Aaron Gilmore is in for now but will be the MP National lose, if they lose a spot on specials.
Result
8/10. National hits its target of 48% and got a clear centre-right majority. To do so despite the economic troubles is a spectacular result. Would have got 9/10 if they could govern alone and 10/10 if they managed to get an MP for every electorate (ie 63 MPs).
Challenges
What portfolios do you give Banks? He was an extremely popular and successful Police Minister, but that may be a bit too much back to the future. He has a strong commercial background, and is thought to be interested in Associate Finance. That could help ACT’s brand (which now will be economic liberalism rather than economic and social liberalism), if he has an economic role. Other possibilities are Customs and/or Corrections.
What policy gains do you give the Maori Party? They will want more than just a repeat of what they got last time. However any further policy concessions could play badly with National’s support base, and be fuel for Winston.
Ministerial portfolios. There is room for three or four new Ministers with the retirements of Mapp, Power and te Heuheu plus ACT having one fewer Minister. Any members of the Class of 2005 who do not make it this time will take it (accurately) as a sign they will never be a Minister, and this can lead to grumpiness. Likely at least one member of the Class of 2008 will be promoted (to join Joyce and Parata already there), maybe two of them.
Select Committee Chairs. National will not have a majority on all select committees and four of its five support partner MPs will be Ministers, so select committees will be important. Normally the Opposition gets to chair two of them. Will Key be generous and offer a chairmanship each to Labour, Greens and NZ First?
NZ First. Key rightfully ruled out a coalition or confidence and supply deal with Peters on the grounds of an inability to trust him as stable. However now he is back in Parliament, there is a need to have a working relationship with NZ First. Not an agreement, but they will be lobbied on bills they might support, will sit on the business committee etc. If Winston manages to avoid getting caught up in scandals, then the position on ruling him out may be different come 2014. Too early to speculate, but it will be interesting to observe.
2014: How the hell do you win in 2014? At this stage, I’d have to say the odds are not great for National, but there are three years to go. Labour also in a weak position. the reality is at this stage most likely 2014 outcome is Winston holds balance of power. But again if a week is a long time in politics, three years is an eternity.
Related posts:
- Winning a third term for National – Part III
- The National-ACT Agreement
- What I wish National had said
- Two bad votes from National
November 28th, 2011 at 9:40 am
2014 – we should be in much better shape. National will have some lollies to dish out. I suspect a nice fat tax cut for Dime.
Conservative Party – I get the feeling you don’t like em DPF. They need to be built up. I will no doubt disagree with some of their social policies, but shit happens.
If the trend of young people not voting continues, that will help the conservatives too.
National will need to pull 45% in 2014 me thinks. Add Dunne, a couple from ACT! and the conservatives and we are laughing
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:47 am
The strong lift in party vote in Dunedin (exceeding Labour party suport) should add weight to Michael Woodhouse’s prospects of a rise in the ranks. He must be rated a prospect in his area of expertise, Health.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:48 am
I think that National won’t have as many problems as one might suppose in 2014. If they are smart they will introduce preferential voting for the party vote, and hoover up a few percent that way. The turnout will be much higher next time if things are perceived as closer, so their vote will hold up.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:52 am
“To do so despite the economic troubles is a spectacular result.”
For me, National are the only party with the apparent competence to bring us out of these economic troubles. I do not think I am alone in that view and so I believe that National’s result is because of the economic troubles, not in spite of them.
The issue around this distinction is that National do not therefore have a clear mandate to proceed with all of their election policies. In particular, the asset sales policy. I believe a poll showed this as not supported by 75% of the population. For John Key to claim a mandate for this policy is simply incorrect – we did not vote on this policy, we voted on a raft of policies that have different priorities and at least one (economic competence) held more importance than asset sales.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Dime
The Conservatives will never cross the 5% threshold unless Craig says he will back a National led coalition. Social conservative/Christian parties have never managed 5% even when Capill was not known as a pedaphile. Craig and Banks need to talk. There’s really no room for 2 parties to the right of National – they are cannibalizing each other’s vote to some extent.
BlairM
Vote:Changing to preferential voting on the party vote is unlikely. Any recommendations from the MMP review (now that there will be no 2nd “Change” referedum) will need bi-partisan support for implimentation.
November 28th, 2011 at 9:57 am
I think National need to scale back on their asset sales plans, partly due to obvious public opposition, and partly due to market conditions.
If they part sell two power companies this term and put the other two on hold:
Vote:- easier to market them if there is doubt whether there will be more opportunities to follow each float
- a chance to prove the mixed market model for power companies, if it is seen to work then next term more sales will be easier to sell to the public (and to disprove Labour’s exessive scaremongering)
November 28th, 2011 at 10:00 am
In 2014 we will be 30 billion in debt, which ever party gets in doesn’t really matter any more.
People here haven’t yet realised that John Key only got the budget in black by extremely optimistic GDP projections, and the one trick pony of mixed-ownership. GDP will be very low, and the asset sale will bring in little.
The only upside might be a sharp drop in the dollar, followed or perhaps preceded by another down grade, which might help export a bit. But as the world’s goods will finally become too expensive for NZ now they no longer can borrow, the electorate won’t be happy about it.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Banks wasn’t a successful Police Minister. He almost got charged after he meddled with a Police equipment tender for flak jackets. I’d recommend you read the Goldsmith and Harrison biographies to find out more about the incident.
IIRC it was Richard Prebble who opened the doors on Banks’ chicanery. Which makes it somewhat ironic that Banks has come back into parliament via Prebble’s party.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Time to start looking at the internet as a voting method, apathy coupled with the fact that Goff didn’t tell him to fuck off when he had the chance, must surely rate as reasons we got stuck with Peters again.
Vote:By the way Winston now you’ve got a job it might be time to start paying back the money you stole from the taxpayer.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:06 am
I think the challenge for National is/will be in keeping its broad church happy.
Having secured 48% of the vote, there are a lot of people now looking to National for “their” individual preferences and favoured policies to be implemented. That 48% of the vote stretches from the “right” (wanting lower taxes, asset sales etc) to the “centre” (perhaps favouring social stability, steady as she goes, etc etc).
For me, at the right hand end of that spectrum, I get frustrated at National’s lack of fresh thinking and inability to force change. But I can also rationalise that National needs to keep that centre part of the vote happy to.
This isn’t a new problem for the Nats – they got 45% of the vote in 2008 and so have had this challenge of keeping all parts happy for the last 3 years. And they have managed to keep that broad church happy. So far. But I think that’s mainly been because of John Key’s personal popularity and the Labour/Greens inability to mount a strong opposition that would sway away any disaffected voters in the centre.
We shouldn’t just assume Key’s popularity will hold up as strongly for 3 more years, and we shouldn’t expect the opposition to be so inept in this parliament.
So, to my mind, National needs to more overtly and intentionally allow 10% or so of that right-end vote carve off to a “new ACT”, and allow National to more tightly focus on that centre vote. Otherwise they are likely to find that in November 2014 they’re still the biggest party block in the house, but they’re in opposition.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:11 am
>How the hell do you win in 2014?
I don’t know if it is going to be that difficult. Imagine that NZ First hadn’t surged in this election. The three percent of the vote they picked up probably came 50:50 from National and Labour. So an extra seat each. Then divide up the four percent wasted vote and National would have been 4 seats ahead of where they are now and having an overwhelming majority.
So the question is what happens to the NZ First vote? I suspect it’ll collapse again after three years of weird conspiracy theories. Peters was already ranting about Australian investment banks and “New York” on TV1 last night. That just reminds you of the Mikhael Lermontov sinking conspiracy, the Cook Strait Ferry grounding conspiracy that Peters dragged on for months like a lunatic, and you just know that if he was American he’d be a Birther, a Truther, or both. Add in some party funding scandal, and a Andrew Williams urinating all over Wellington, and even the pensioners will be sick of Peters again.
In the mean time, Labour and the Greens are going to have to compete for media time with Peters. And the public will be faced with the true horror of a Labour-Greens-Peters-Mana coalition of freaks and nutbars.
On a completely different matter, I spotted Turei using a mobile phone on the news yesterday. Green Party policy is that the radiation from cell towers is harmful and (due to the precautionary pinciple) they should be restricted. What was so important that Turei needed to use her mobile rather than find a land line? She might have given a small child cancer, and she did it on TV!
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:12 am
kiwi in america – i think there is a trend of people supporting conservative parties world wide. we have become a touch to liberal and PC for a lot of people. I cant see him getting 5%, but they need to find him a seat and let him drag 2 or 3 others in with him.
Asset Sales – 75% of the population say no when asked a loaded question. When the Herald asked the right question and gave options, the answer of “yes I agree with partial asset sales of some assets” was the winner. Im paraphrasing as usual but you get the idea.
I think the partial asset sales will be a success. But National will have big balls to go into the next election trying to sell more.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:13 am
The Maori Party was given plenty in the last Government; ministerial posts, zillions in extra funding, interminable consultation. But their constituents were unappreciative and now they have to demand more as the price of co-operation. Their disappointment at not having the balance of power (and extra bargaining power) is palpable. What now; just be part of the opposition and fade into the background, or join the governing group and make a difference, become a target for Winston, and lose more votes. I guess it is the dilemma of the minor coalition partner that to become closely identified with the major player and lose constituency support. Another of the unintended consequences of MMP..
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:14 am
A word of thanks, David, for your excellent flow of analysis and information. It was a tremendous help and far superior to the inane MSM which looked for distractions and drama at the expense of keeping us informed.
Vote:Even yesterday, Radio NZ had an extended discussion about Sarah Palin of all irrelevant people rather than doing some background, for instance, on our new MPs.
The MSM is digging its own grave. Thank goodness for your blog!
November 28th, 2011 at 10:17 am
BlairM makes two excellent points:
Pref voting would save National from a loss caused by ineffective votes for the Cons. It would also mean no need for any dodgy-looking deals with Act. If Act fails to win Epsom, National still gets the votes!
On turnout, people like Raymond Miller are saying that Labour voters stayed home because of the polls. Wrong. It was National voters who stayed home because of the polls. The evidence is the turnout figures in south Auckland where the total vote was UP on 2008. It also explains the mismatch between polls and result, and fits with the nature of the Labour campaign – aimed purely at inspiring their core vote. If 2014 looks like it will be close, more Nats will get out to vote.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:18 am
I’d give them 7/10. They ran a good campaign up until the last 2 weeks where several mistakes were made. The biggest mistake (and thus the reason for not getting 8/10) was not endorsing Banks early on and allowing Act to be destroyed – the right has lost seats this time around, so more reliance on the Maori party will be required (after specials they may have only a single seat majority with UF/Act).
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:28 am
No way Banks should get Associate Finance. It would just give the Opposition too much ammo, accurate or not.
“How can he manage the countries finances when he couldn’t even manage being a Director for a small fund manager?”
“WTF is bee pollen anyway?”
Seriously. Bee pollen. It’s a scam.
Give him Environment instead.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:29 am
For 2014, I think that National should state up front that it will build a coalition before the election rather than after the election. No dicking around with hints and tea-related photo opportunities. This means a coalition agreement before the election, and coalition partners not standing against each other in seats. Coalition partners could campaign for the party vote, but National wouldn’t stand a candidate in Epsom and a few other seats, while ACT, NZ First, and possibly the Conservatives wouldn’t stand candidates in seats where National stood a candidate.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:30 am
“2014: How the hell do you win in 2014?”
Form a Country Party aimed at the rural electorates.
JC
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Changing to preferential voting on the party vote is unlikely. Any recommendations from the MMP review (now that there will be no 2nd “Change” referedum) will need bi-partisan support for implementation.
It’s in Labour’s interests as well – they might still be in government after 2008 had they got second preferences from NZ First. In fact, it’s in everyone’s interests, with the possible exception of the Maori Party. I just can’t see how anyone would lose out from it, and it would stop the ridiculous distortion of voting that the 5% threshold inadvertently creates.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Simon O’Connor – Tamaki?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:48 am
BlairM
I agree its an excellent idea its just it would be a major change to electoral law and they are notoriously difficult to get across the board support for. If Labour and National support it you can guarantee that the Greens and NZ1st will oppose it.
leftyliberal
I dont think an earlier endorsement of Banks would’ve made any difference. There is a difference between Key signalling to National voters in Epsom to vote for Banks to ensure National had at least one solid ally – its a whole other thing to ask Key to campaign for ACT for the party vote. Key made it clear that he was positioning National more to the centre of ACT and I’m sure he thought Brash’s coup was going to be as electorally unappealing as it ended up being. The fact that he essentially ignored Brash’s 2025 Commission Report was a big clue as to Key’s ideological positioning going into this election.
Peter George
Vote:You’re succumbing to the Wellington beltway media theme of the day. Key campaigned strongly and openly on the partial sell down. Labour made opposition to the plan pretty much the centrepiece of their campaign. The issue was about as front and centre as was humanly possible and still the Nat vote went up and Key was able to form a solid unwavering unambiguous centre right coalition. The polls showing opposition were always poorly worded. Voters understand exactly what Key is planning to do and a plurality voted for parties that support it (just).
November 28th, 2011 at 10:55 am
If I were the Maori Party I would use the National/United Future/Act slim majority as leverage and demand that the ACT Party is kept out of government. Banks would still vote with National but the Maori Party could turn to their electorate and say “See, we’ve kept to our principles, we said we won’t work with ACT and we’ve kept them out of government.”
Vote:Key won’t like it but 3 votes to 1, especially in this govt, is a significant difference.
November 28th, 2011 at 10:59 am
I think National has a major problem with the generally left leaning bias of the media and subsequently has trouble explaining any detail of its policy. This is why I agree with Kiwi in America above and his reply to Peter George. It was clearly evident last year with its idea of investigating the potential of new mining , because that is what it was to be an investigation , not going out starting new mines tomorrow.
I’m not sure how National gets around this problem but it is a fundamental issue the strategy guys need to address. The answer will have to be something completely.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:59 am
@kiwi in america: You may well be right – though I’ve voted Act in the past, it didn’t even cross my mind this time around due to the top 2 on the list being complete wastes of time and space, so that may well be the thinking of Act supporters this time around (as opposed to thinking that Banks might not make it, so best not risk throwing the party vote away).
Hopefully the MMP review gets rid of the threshold (or reduces it significantly) so that the gaming of the system is no longer required, and more folk can vote for both the party and person that best represents them.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Maori Party.
I’ve already sent an email to John Key congratulating him on his win but saying I would be grossly disappointed if Maori were given preferential access to any partial asset sales.
Maori should compete equally with everyone else, and suffer any scaling down that anyone else sufferes if there is over-subscription.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I must rate this election result as a loss/loss afair.
With 50% National might have grown the balls to do the things vital to the country; dump WFF, dump ETS, dump useless ministries and make benefits temporary for all able bodied people.
DPF, I think you’re wrong about 2014. NZ First, without the retiring Winnie and the pissing JAFA, will be a natural partner for National, the deluded will have seen the Reds/Greens for what they are and Labour, having done nothing to rejuvenate this election will still be struggling for credibility.
I also think next time National might run a campaign that is more than “Isn’t John a nice bloke?”.
The biggest loss though was the MMP vote. That vote seriously hurt NZ!
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Is preferential voting for MMP on the cards? I.e. Is this an ‘officially’ recognised potential tweak for MMP? If so it is a very good idea that should be pushed.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:13 am
I think National does need to look ahead to 2014 as they will almost certainly need another party to support them. The Conservative would be the best fit from my perspective. I think they made a mistake saying they were happy to work with both National or Labour. If Key and Craig started to talk and worked a plan it could be very successful. Too many parties on the left and very few on the right from where I see it.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Re: Rouppe
If these assets are to stay in NZ hands, then I think iwi (or an amalgamation of them) will be major players as they have the access to capital. One would hope that iwi would then reinvest the dividends in our economy. I’m not sure that the super fund investment portfolios will do so, as they may see the dividends good for investing in overseas markets.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
The unemployment rate is the biggest challenge for National. That’s what will get National booted again, as per 1999. People start thinking: “well, if we are going to be broke then we may as well have Labour, they are nicer to people in need”. National got 39 seats in 1999 so the electorate didn’t want to see them gone as badly as they wanted to keep Labour out with this election with Tabour’s 34 seat take.
Vote:Employment and the Winston factor ruled 1999. I think a lot of people may come home to the major parties and this may give National a boost. MMP was bought in theoretically so minor players could have a seat around the table but the public hate it. Just look at Gowers dirty deal stories on Epsom and Ohariu.
We also have the celebrity element to factor in now. Maybe they should give social welfare to Maggie Barry. She woudn’t be able to put a foot wrong,
November 28th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
winston has a few good ideas ……. cherry pick them and ignore the other rubbish.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
leftyliberal
Vote:Removing the threshhold will prevent the overhang problem and the electorate seat tactical voting but then you’ll end up with the Israeli Italian scenario of even more fragmented parties and even more unstable multi party coalitions. Imagine if there were 3 or 4 more parties on top of the current crop. No threshold encourages even more left and right leaning splinter or special interest parties and even more scope for the tail wagging the dog.
November 28th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Intriguing questions.
1. The total vote was 7% less than the last election. The Nats. ran in at 48% of the lessor vote. What would that be if the number of votes was run against the last election number?
Why did so many not vote? Because they had no idea who or what to vote for. Had it said to me a dozen times in the last few days.
Tells me, that the parties other than the Greens didn’t communicate effectively with voters.
2. Why is it that the farmers who will theoretically be lumbered with their share of the ETS voted National or didn’t vote?
Vote:They are about to be handed a major farm cost for no benefit and yet they supported being taxed more. Duuuur
Don’t make sense to me.
November 28th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
@kiwi in america: IMO you won’t end up with the Israeli/Italian problem in NZ. For a start you have fewer seats so necessarily fewer small parties possible. Further, I don’t think the threshold has stopped small parties registering for the party vote, and this time around there were only 13 registered (fewer than in previous years?), and only 8 of them made it past the limit but didn’t get a seat this time around (it would mean Conservatives in and UF out).
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
LL
Vote:Disagree I’m afraid. The Israeli Knesset is 120 members so plenty of scope for myriads of small parties even with a legislature of that size. One famous coalition headed by Likud once had I think 6 different parties including an ultra right wing fundementalist rabbinical party that from memory collapsed the government. Even under FPP we had a reasonable number of nutter parties that attracted less than 1,000 votes nationally – that will never stop. What I’m talking about are parties that can get 0.83%+ of the vote (the threshold to get 1 out of 120 MPs). Go back over the last 10 elections and see how many parties have got that high a vote and more importantly look at who the parties are and you’ll see my point.
November 28th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Guys, does anyone have the URL link to Key’s post election interview with Sainsbury on TVNZ around midnight on Saturday night. (The one where he was bedecked in streamers)?
Most grateful if you’d post it.
Swifty
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
The result was a potentially pyrrhic one for National. It as successfully cannibalised its mate ACT to the stage where ACT is probably beyond salvation. Banks is not the sort of leader that is capable of dragging ACT back from the Brink. Rodney for all his faults was an enthusiast and a great cheerleader for the party. Banks is and has always been a Nat. Dunn looks to be on his last turn. His popularity is personal and united Future are gone when he goes.
Then Turn to the Maori party, they took a shot across the bows from their support base. Tariana and Peta are retiring at the next election and loosing an MP has meant they cannot refresh the leadership going into the next election. They are sort of Damned if they do and Damned if they don’t in respect of coalition with National. If they enter into a formal coalition and take the “Baubles of office” their supporters are likely to turn to labour or Mana. If they don’t they miss out on the “Gains”that being part of the power base has given them during the last term. I cant see them adding to their seats at the next election, it is more likely that they will drop another one or two seats and fade away.
So Key and National need to hit a few home runs this term. Their Asset sales have to go well and they have to deliver on the Value equation. That might be difficult in a suppressed equities market environment. Social welfare reforms will again be tough in a global recession as the jobs that beneficiaries are going to be required to take will not be there. The Policy is probably not wrong but the timing and environment is going to be difficult to manage.
Labour have a huge rebuild to do which will help National but National needs to remember 2002 and the comeback to 2005.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“The issue around this distinction is that National do not therefore have a clear mandate to proceed with all of their election policies. In particular, the asset sales policy.”
So says one poster, echoing Winston Peters and a chorus of leftist commentators. The evidence says otherwise.
National did not campaign on an “asset sales policy”. It campaigned on a policy of selling up to 49% of 5 named SOEs, with the New Zealand government retaining a minimum shareholding of 51% of each SOE. National announced this policy early in 2011, and during the election run-up Key indicated his intention that around 85% of the shares in the SOEs will stay in NZ hands.
By NZ’s usual standards that was an exceptionally clear major policy, signaled well before the election. National’s share of the vote increased appreciably. National will now lead a majority government in the Parliament with the voting numbers to pass all legislation necessary to effect the share sell-down. That is democracy.
Labour (and others) tried to portray the policy as selling NZ assets off to foreigners, or to Key’s mates, or any other fanciful and negative story they could dream up. Labour in particular made stopping assets sales an important (probably the central) plank of its campaign, and while doing so deliberately misrepresented National’s clearly stated intentions.
Labour’s share of the vote decreased appreciably. Labour now finds itself in opposition in the Parliament, most unlikely to be able to prevent the passage of relevant legislation. That too is democracy.
There is an attempt being made by the electoral losers on the left to re-litigate the 2011 election on this major issue. Key and his Government should now proceed promptly to implement the policy, before misleading nonsense about “not having a mandate for asset sales” becomes more prevalent as we move through a brief 3-year electoral cycle.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
@kiwi in america: Have looked from ’96 onwards (others aren’t so easy to grab data by the looks). Christians would make it in in 96, 99 and 02. NZ first would get in 99 and 08. Legalize Cannibas would have been in in 96/99. United in 96, Future in 99. Alliance and Outdoor Rec in 02. Seems reasonable enough to me. Seems like the only “new” parties we’d have had over the last 15 years would have been the pot smoking Christians
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
BeaB 10:14. You are right. I only use the web for news. I only go to MSM sites if there is a link from here, No Ministewr, or Whale. When I come back to NZ, I won’t have a TV.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Ross 12 10:59 They could try something radical with the ‘MSM’. Let them stay in the press gallery. However, when it comes to exclusive interviews, only give them to new media wherever they are. Give 3/4 of all answers to new media. Never appear on TV3, or radio left wing. Personal interviews with new media only.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I assume key will turn down the volume on peters and take at his word that he plans to he constructive. There is no point peters being oppositionist unless he wants to be some sort of joker providing entertainment for the media.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
DJP6-25
David –that is exactly the sort of thinking they need to have. They have to control the use of media , not the other way around.
Vote:I think the left of the political divide has used the new media better to date and with the help of their mates in the MSM they have no problems getting their message across. National just has to out smart both the MSM and the left’s communication tactics.
November 28th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
@ Peter George
I think National need to scale back on their asset sales plans, partly due to obvious public opposition……
What obvious public opposition Pete? Just because people who are at work havn’t been wanking on about this doesnt mean that the majority of the public do not agree with the selling of a shareholding in successful business’s. NO assets are being sold, I would have thought you would not have bought into this bullshit.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Some of you people spend too much time drinking with socialists to show how matey you are, and too much time listening to the chattering classes.
Paul Quinn will be back on special votes.
Having spent time dismissing this possibility I will wager that the moment Paul returns you will be writing how you predicted it all along (a lie) rather than you were brainwashed by opponents (the truth). Why not take a view and stick to it rather than claiming authorship of everything?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
I don’t know Paul Quinn but I have to say that I was delighted to see him being removed from Parliament. I remember DPF singing the praises of Quinn back in 2008 as a great debater and a man for the future. Utter nonsense.
Vote:Paul Quinn spent most of his time bellowing inane interjections across the chamber like a brain affected rugby player. He certainly provided little in the way of positives for National.
Quinn looked out of place in parliament and we should we pleased with the List ranking committee who saw it as a good way of lifting the intelligence and integrity of the National caucus. Not everything or anyone from Wellington hits the jackpot !
November 28th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Borrowing $300,000,000 a week to keep the country running, how can this be allowed to happen?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 8:56 am
National did so well this election. the last two times they came in they just barely managed to win a second term
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
How will Key ”turn down the volume” on Peters when Peters is far more experienced , far more articulate and is a much better debater? Also , despite his protestations , he obviously has friends in the media.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
@joana. You forgot to mention that, as Peters is firmly in the opposition benches, his views count for little and his time will be limited.
Besides, I’d think the first question to be asked in Parliament will be directed to Peters regarding the outstanding $158,000 he owes the NZ taxpayer.
Vote: