Key knives Winston’s early election hopes

john-key-729-620x349

Prime Minister John Key has shot down Winston Peters’ prediction that there will be an early election next year.

The NZ First leader said on Monday the government wouldn’t last a full term and would have to call an early election because it was having a bad run and had made too many mistakes.

Mr Key doesn’t think so.

“I genuinely haven’t made up my mind, I honestly haven’t considered it,” he told reporters.

“There’s nothing I can see that would indicate an early election, and on the basis of that it will be in the back half of next year.”

He challenged reporters to figure it out for themselves, saying he had always considered November was “a bit late” because of the APEC leaders’ meeting.

“You can work out dates when there’s not an All Black test match … you can probably work it out roughly within a few weeks or a month.”

Parties that call an early election are generally punished at the ballot box for acting selfishly.  No way National would do that now, especially as they may not like the answer they’d get.  But for Winston it would be perfect.

National under Key has in fact worked the other way by announcing it well in advance rather than keeping the date a secret with just days to go, thereby breaking what was essentially a bit of a tradition where the ruling party played silly buggers.

There are absolutely no signs of the Left pulling itself into a cohesive lot over the next 12 months.  Labour are currently bleeding critical front line staff.  They have run the numbers and know shifting National’s from the treasury benches is impossible.  A fair number of people can’t face another losing campaign, especially with Ballsup Andy likely to be National’s secret weapon.

 

– NZN via Yahoo! News

  • biscuit barrel

    Ask Turnbull how his early election went ?

    • STAG

      I don’t know, having the Kiwi equivalent of Pauline Hanson might be just what we need to shut the door on undesirables.

  • Darren Allis

    “especially with Ballsup Andy likely to be National’s secret weapon.” <—Exactly

    It's much the same with my competitor and his sales manager, he heads around the various retail outlets telling them our product is crap and pulling it off the shelves. He's our best salesman.The retailers can't stand the arrogance and straight up rudeness so buy whatever they can off me and practically beg me to expand my range so they don't have to buy it of him.

    Labour & Andy's approach is very similar, refuse to acknowledge any good work by the government, oppose everything and consistently insult the intelligence of the middle NZ swing voter. With Nationals frequent swings toward lefty policy Andy is National's best salesman.

  • Aucky

    ‘Vote for Little and get Metiria for free’ does not make for an inspiring election message to the missing million.

    • RoboRob

      Yes. I could handle Labour but would NEVER want the Greens to have control.

      • OneTrack

        Who would you trust in Labour, and will they be anywhere near the front bench in a Green, NZ First, Labour and who knows who else, coalition of the envious?

        • RoboRob

          Ohh, nobody. I think Labour are hopeless but generally think they wouldn’t cause massive long term damage. The greens on the other hand would potentially set nz back for decades with their short term thinking.

          Didn’t mean to imply that Labour were any good :)

  • axeman

    The sad sad thing is that there is no real alternative to National. I’m far from happy with their performance but who else is there that you would let loose with the Visa Card??
    In general terms the country is doing pretty well. There are some issues that need dealing with but really with a 3 year parliamentary term there is very little political will to make some hard calls.

    • biscuit barrel

      Trouble is that English has been free with the the credit card.
      In the early 2000s total government external borrowing was around $16B, in 2015 it was $55B. When you count local debt and SOE borrowings you could be around $75B
      http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun15/49.htm

      • RoboRob

        Yup I’m sure thats true. However If you recall the policies of ALL the other parties at the time of the GFC National was by far the most conservative. Lab and the Greens both wanted to borrow heavily to kick start the economy (not just not cut spending which is what the Nats did).

        With the advatage of hind sight we can see now that we would have likely been much worse off under Lab / Greens with relation to debt.

        • axeman

          Coming through the GFC I think they got the mix just about right between borrowing and stimulus.
          In regards to the Christchurch Rebuild, what alternative did they have. It was massive event that needed Govt help, so as a tax payer I’m happy with that.

          • RoboRob

            Totally agree. I meant to say that I think they did it pretty much perfectly.

            Actually their handling of the GFC and Quake may be Keys biggest legacy. If we look at the rest of the word, other countries went for Austerity (and crashed their economies) or a spend up that massively weakened the countries finances. In almost all cases NZ has had better growth and lower unemployment.

          • biscuit barrel

            The Christchurch cost has been tiny in taxpayers money. The EQC had its own fund and reinsurance so that wasnt borrowed money. latest estimates are the shortfall is around $500 mill from the taxpayers. Its contribution to underground rebuilt has been wound back as well. This report covers it well
            “First that headline $16.5b contribution figure has to halved because $8b of it is EQC insurance money. Take out the red zone and AMI bailout and that gives you the $6.7b core Crown spend. of $2b for actual operating spending up to 2014, the last available audited year.

            Dividing up the $2b, Preston says it amounts to
            $571m for sewers and drains,
            $293m for roads,
            $397m for Blueprint land,
            $393m for schools, hospitals, law courts and other Crown buildings,
            $220m for the business support package,
            plus a collection of sundry amounts like $28m for the AMI temporary rugby stadium.
            http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/70084887/how-much-is-the-government-really-spending-to-fix-christchurch

            Does you really think spending $70B , to be repaid by later generations, will be seen as a solution to the GFC ?

          • axeman

            Well I certainly don’t think it should be a burden on just one generation being the current one. I guess the question is what would you have done differently? You could argue more austerity, but I’m reminded of a saying you are only three meals away from a revolution.

          • biscuit barrel

            You do do know that with the GFC long passed and the good times rolling we are borrowing $7B this year alone ! Thats an increase on last years $6Bill
            Whats your rationale for that ?

          • axeman

            So again I ask what would you do differently? you’ve only replied with another question.
            The Govt quite rightly borrows like any other business for asset generation be it schools, hospitals, roading, miltary, welfare and so on. This is paid by us the tax payer and the surplus’s that the Government generates. It has taken a long time to for the Govt to get back to running surplus’s and some may argue dodgy ones at that. Weather we like it or not our economy is so reliant on what happens overseas and all is still not well abroad. Our economy is growing, employment is up. When disaster strikes it happens so quickly the recovery is always a long term thing. The recovery from the last great depression was a long drawn out affair and the GFC is no different.

          • biscuit barrel

            You cant have it both ways and borrow for disasters and financial crisis and borrow large amounts every year in normal times.
            Ive made it clear the Christchurch borrowing is a small amount over 5 years as we had a disaster fund, we had reinsurance.
            This isnt the place to discuss all these things, but the public isnt being told we are borrowing an extra $7B a year. They hear surplus and they think there is cash left over for tax cuts

      • Bryan

        and you also need to factor in what has been borrowed to help the Christchurch rebuild which are one off cost rather than borrowing to run govt

        • biscuit barrel

          Chritschurch was only about $5B extra over 5 years with maybe $2B to come

    • Seriously?

      You make a good point about the three year term. It is too short.

      I don’t like 5 year terms. When people get elections by mistake, by the grass is always greener that tends to set in over time only to find the greener grass is actually artificial , you then have too long until the next change.

      I’m a fan of 4 year terms. It feels like a better middle ground. Allows a couple of years at the start to do things that may take time to bed in and start showing fruit.

      • LovetoTeach

        I agree – 4 is a good amount of time

    • Welcome to MMP.

  • cows4me

    Winnie is in a hurry, always the brides maid aren’t you Winnie and the rest home is calling. Face it you’ll be a spinster to the day you kick the bucket.

  • GoingRight

    Re your a) comment – I don’t think Winnie has been looking very well these past few weeks. Rather gaunt with some weight loss?

1%