Alex's live election blog: The worm gives debate to Goff; Who do you think won?

Alex's live election blog: The worm gives debate to Goff; Who do you think won?

Here's a fresh live election blog for Tuesday.

See all election policies from all parties in Parliament in our party policy section here.

See party lists here.

Live blog

5:10 pm: Costings fight. Earlier on Tuesday, National Party campaign manager Stephen Joyce issued a press release trying to add the cost of Green Party policies onto what National thinks the Labour Party would be spending over the next four years. The Green Party has just responded.

See the Green Party's policies here.

Here's what Joyce had to say:

"Even if Labour agrees to just 25 per cent of these policies promoted by the Greens as part of a coalition deal, we would be looking at extra debt of more than $6 billion over four years, on top of the $15.6 billion that Labour is already promising to borrow.  New Zealand simply can't afford a big-spending Government like that at this time.  That would take the total to around $22 billion of extra borrowing.

"Taken together, the Greens and Labour policies would cost tens of thousands of jobs and massively ramp up debt."

Mr Joyce says the pricey Greens proposals include (costs over four years):

·         Extending paid parental leave to 13 months = $4 billion

·         Extending the 'In-Work' tax credit to beneficiaries = $1.7 billion

·         Extending unemployment benefit to all students over summer = $1.6 billion

·         Universal Student Allowance at the level of unemployment benefit = $4.2 billion

·         Free 'wellness checks and dental check' = $3.6 billion

·         Wiping one year's student debt for each year worked in New Zealand = $3 billion

·         Green jobs initiatives = $3.2 billion.

And these are just a few of the Greens policies.

To which Green Party co-leader Russel Norman responded, by telling Joyce that the Greens had revenue raising options too:

“The Green Party has been totally upfront about what our priority issues are and how much they cost,” Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

“The Green Party has fully costed its election priorities and published them as part of its Green Jobs Initiative on September 21, 2011.

“Our priorities to create thousands of green jobs, to clean up our rivers and lakes, and to bring 200,000 children out of poverty will cost $4.124 billion over the next three years. To pay for this, we have identified new revenue streams and cost savings amounting to $7.910 billion.

“We recognise the significant fiscal constraints we’re currently facing and have tailored our election priorities accordingly. We will pay down Government debt as quickly, if not more quickly than either National or Labour are proposing.

“National is deflecting attention away from its own poor record of fiscal management which has seen debt balloon to record levels, a double credit downgrade, and no meaningful economic plan to deal with a chronic current account deficit.

@RusselNorman also tweeted: "Nats borrowing $2b per year to pay for tax cuts to top 10% + $2b per year for new motorways. Fiscally reckless. #votenz"

For more on this, see my earlier piece: why we need to keep an eye on the Green Party's spending promises as well as Labour's (clue: it's due to MMP).

5:00 pm: NewstalkZB reports on the teapot tapes: Justice Helen Winkelmann will deliver her judgement at 2:15pm in court tomorrow.

4:50 pm: Labour's Phil Goff expanded today on a comment made during the last week that Labour may use the four energy SOEs earmarked for mixed-ownership for more 'social purposes'.

Speaking to media at the Brooklyn wind turbine in Wellington, Goff said Labour's initial priority would be paying down government debt, which would be aided by income generated by the SOEs. However, after reaching surplus, a Labour government might look to accept a lower dividend stream from those SOEs as a way of not taking as much from consumers signed up to those companies.

See Goff's comments in the video above.

See parties' SOE policies here.

1:35 pm: The Green Party this afternoon released a small-medium enterprise (SME) policy:

See and compare parties' 'small business' policies in our party policy section here.

“Small businesses with small annual turnovers spend a lot of time and money on tax compliance. We plan to give these small businesses the option of paying their taxes on a simplified cash basis on their GST returns.

“For even smaller businesses, company tax can be based on turnover."


“To strengthen the domestic market for green innovation, the Green Party will rewrite government procurement and certification processes to favour New Zealand made environmentally sustainable goods and services.

“By greening government procurement policies, local SMEs will face incentives to rapidly innovate to secure lucrative government contracts. Once secured, those SMEs will have a base from which to export their same clean technology solutions overseas.

“We’ll supplement our green government procurement policies with a $100 million start-up capital fund for clean technology SMEs and community enterprises, and boost central government funding of R&D by $1 billion over the next three years.

1:30 pm: iPredict has sent out its daily election update (not yet online). Key points are:

*       Four days out from the general election, John Key's National Party continues to be forecast to be able to govern with the support of just one of the Green, Act, Maori or UnitedFuture parties.
*       Labour continues to lose the market's confidence in key electorates.  National's Chris Auchinvole is now predicted to win West Coast-Tasman, with 52% probability.  Palmerston North is now highly marginal with Labour's Iain Lees-Galloway having a 50% probability of winning the seat against National's Leonie Hapeta, who now has a 48% probability of winning.
*       There is only an 11% chance that Labour leader Phil Goff will apologise for sending out the provocative "baby girl" brochure. There is also an 11% probability that he will apologise for sending out the controversial "save your family home" brochure.
*       David Parker has gained ground in the race for the Labour leadership post-election, up to 27% probability.  The frontrunner remains David Cunliffe at 40%.
*       Labour's forecast party vote has fallen by 0.5% to 28.0%.
*       The heavily traded stock forecasting Winston Peters' chance of returning to Parliament is down to 40% probability, from 43% yesterday.  New Zealand First's forecast party vote is 4.5%.

12:20 pm: Sorry, got a little distracted by migration figures. Back on board here now.

We now have the last figures before the November 26 election of permanent/long-term departures from New Zealand to Australia and PLT arrivals from Australia to New Zealand. See them in this spreadsheet here, sheets 1 & 2. Data is sourced from Stats NZ's infoshare.

Between December 2008 and October 2011, 43,712 migrants moved from Australia to New Zealand permanently or long-term. That compared to 116,500 moving from NZ to Australia, giving a net departure figure to Australia of 72,788 during those 35 months.

Comparing that to the same period under the last Labour government’s final term: (note: have left out November 2008, which was the election month; The 2005 election was held in September 2005, but for comparison the 35 month block used is December 2005 to October 2008).

Between December 2005 and October 2008, 39,198 people moved from Australia to New Zealand permanently/long-term. During that time, 119,613 people left, giving net departures from NZ to Aus of 80,415 during those 35 months.

Of course, there are a number of other ways to compare this (average monthly figures for example), so will see if there's time for that. You're welcome to do it yourselves :)

9:10 am: @NZStuffPolitics tweets: Tea tape saga goes before judge

Today's the day we find out whether the 'teapot tapes' were in fact a private conversation. The cameraman who recorded the conversation between Prime Minister John Key and ACT's Epsom candidate John Banks in a Newmarket cafe has asked the High Court to determine whether the chat was a private conversation. If it is ruled as private, Radio NZ, TVNZ, TV3 and the Herald on Sunday are set to be searched by police after Key made a complaint to them last week.

Media had been invited to the meeting between Key and Banks, but were ushered away by Key's chief of staff after a photo opportunity inside the cafe. The media were allowed to film the pair a foot away through the window Key and Banks were sitting at.

8:20 am: The worm gives it to Goff. Last night's leaders debate between John Key and Phil Goff has been given to the Labour Party leader on the performance of 'the worm'.

The debate was designed to indicate how undecided voters might lean in the election - about 12% of voters are said to be undecided.

Vernon Small at Fairfax writes:

Labour will take some heart from the so-called worm, controlled by an audience of 65 uncommitted voters, who liked Mr Goff's message on ways to lift people out of the underclass but took a dislike to Mr Key.

If the 10 to 15 per cent of voters who are undecided break that way on election night – a big if – Labour will do much better than polls suggest.

But right-wing blogger David Farrar blogged there were at least three Labour or Green Party-affiliated people in the audience. The NZ Herald's Derek Cheng reports:

Late last night, National Party member and Kiwiblog founder David Farrar claimed at least three Labour voters and a Green voter were among the "wormers".

But debate producer Keith Slater said the panel was carefully selected under strict criteria by a reputable company.

If politically aligned people were on it, they "would have lied to the people selecting the panel".

The worm is getting a good working over on the #votenz tag on Twitter.

Fun pic of the day: Labour Party ad on Kiwiblog.

More soon.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


I was an undecided voter too but after the latest debate have decided to give my vote to Labour.

It was shocking for me to hear that New Zealand has more than 270,000 children living in poverty - half of them are from working families.Initially I was unsure about the minimum wage increase , but after this debate it has become clear to me that it has to go up. 

For those doubting the level of child poverty in New Zealand , I would suggest that you please watch the documentary, Inside New Zealand: Inside Child Poverty which will be shown on TV3 at 7.30pm on Tuesday.

All of us are busy in the pursuit of wealth, power and pleasures of the world and neglect our soul.New Zealand is now at a "moral crossroads" and we need our politicians to work out a long-term policy for the health of children. A nation with poor children is a poor excuse for a nation ... it's not a political question, it's an ethical question. No child should go hungry in this country, no child should have a preventable disease.

I think everyone in New Zealand should view this documentary before they go to the polls on Saturday because child poverty is a political issue. Our political parties are either part of the solution or part of the problem

Child poverty is worsened by the welfare state ..... it is a political issue . Get the bureaucratic busy-bodies out of the privtae citizens' lives , and there'd be a massive decrease in poverty , and in child abuse .

.... more children than ever have been abused and murdered since the introduction of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill .

More people are claiming a need for an extension of Labour's working for families package . ...... so it didn't work , did it .

..... get the meddling politicians out of our daily lives .

Gummy, it also needs said. Child poverty in New Zealand is largely a Maori and Polynesian problem. And that won't change until there is a sea change in attitude in those communities to their lot in life, particularly around the achievement expectations that they hold for themselves, and their families.  They must move beyond the welfare mentality of ‘the government should be giving us money, the government should be giving us jobs, the government should be giving us houses’ before things will change. Additionally attitudes towards education must change, learning is something to be embraced, and achievement celebrated rather than denigrated.

These are unpopular opinions, particularly amongst those who 'care' about social justice. But clearly their ‘caring’ only goes so far.

DB : Cast your mind back a few years when Australian PM Bob Hawke announced a future date , by which time there'd be no more children living in poverty within his country ...... the date came and went ..... and still many live in poverty , regardless of the welfare system , all the hand-outs and subsidies , rental assistence , dental assistence , mental assistence , monumental assistence ... ....

..... some adults are just bloody feckless , useless and lazy . Why can't politicians understand that truth , and stop sucking the lifeblood out of the productive workers & businesses , in order to appease the ever-expanding numbers of daft indolent silly sods .

This isn't a child abuse issue--it's a matter of the state singularly abdicating its responsibilities to ensure that high quality services are in place for all New Zealanders, including those who are poor as hell and have zero social skills. It's a human rights issue, and the government has been systematically ignoring it.

The National Party would say its the kids fault for having the parents that they have. The children didn't choose to be brought up with parents that they have and are not responsible for their choices.

As a society its our duty to ensure that they are given every opportunity to grow and develop and have the same chances as any other child in our nation

While there are other countries that are far worse lot than NZ  that doesn't mean we can ignore this issue.

Sorry but indescriminate breeding is the issue and that comes back to lack of personal responsibility. While I think the theory of a welfare state is a good one, covering ppl in genuine and dire need, there are clear cases of the poor and un-educatable using their children as weapons to claim money they should not entitled to.

Years ago before welfare those who couldnt afford to support a family by and large didnt have one......

"As a society its our duty to ensure that" children are only born within a setting that means that they have "every opportunity to grow and develop and have the same chances as any other child in our nation"

That is the difference...children should not be conceived indescriminately which for some sadly seems to be the case.


Simple fact is if we don't deal with this growing underclass now we deal with the problem in the future. Unhealthy, underfed, undereducated and socially dis-connected children become angry or depressed young adults. Should we deal with child poverty now or build new jails in the future?

We cannot afford the cost of ignoring the kids that need us to speak up for them now

Any number of medical practitioners and coroners have suggested each child at birth should be given a home situation WOF check and those considered to be going home to live in an at risk environment should be frequently visited/monitored.

Additionally, many have suggested the estimated food necessity expenditure portion of any benefit paid should be delivered on a smart/debit card which cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products or cash - and that that proportion of a benefit or the whole of an accommodation supplement should be direct credited to the provider of the accommodation.

And then others have suggested that if a person/company goes into the business of providing accommodation - that accommodation should be inspected as fit for habitation.  Leaking roofs, rising damp, sinking foundations, floors with holes in them, unsafe wiring, broken windows, inadequate drainage/guttering etc - would all need repair before such time as the accommodation could be let.

There are so many ways we could proactively improve the health and welfare outcomes of our most vulnerable.  Why we don't adopt these commonsense principles normally comes down to the advantaged in society wanting to minimise what they see as govt intrusion in their lives and businesses.  Quite happy for a valuer to come in and assess the value of a property they own, but not an inspector to determine whether it is fit for purpose.





Re your first paragraph - when I was pregnant with my first baby, my midwife told me how she knew well before a baby was born that he didn't stand a chance in life because either his parents were abusive or completely unable to raise him/her. She said that in those cases it always made her feel horrible to hand the baby out to the parents after the delivery. Quite sad really.

As to why we don't adopt some commonsense principles: politicians are not well know for their commonsense, are they?!

I question if these children should even be if they are not born there is no under-class to pay for or worry about. 

Jails are probably cheaper.....lock the parents up before they breed.


If we start down that road it's a slippery slope to eugenics - a policy followed by Hitler....


Lets not get emotive with throwing hitler slogans about, but actually examine the core issues.

The problem is food and energy.....we have 7 billion ppl who eat fossils fuels.....when the production rate of fossil fuels declines (which it will this decade) then we wont be able to feed the ppl we have let alone any more.

So the Q is do we control population in a rigorus manner now (well actually  a decade ago) because if we dont then society itself will not survive ie Nature will do it for us.......or let nature take its course....

It seems we are determined to let the latter take its course....

Also if I am expected to support other ppl I think it perfectly reasonable that they are responsible for minimlaising that, if not well I dont think I should be supporting them.


We do not need to control the population , infact , the situation will back-fire horribly if the politicians get involved in the birth-control arena , .....

...... here in the Philippines , our population density is about 20 times that of NZ . Damn near 100 million souls in a group of island barely 10 % larger in cumulative land area than New Zealand . Thankyou el Poppa Benedictine & the Catholic church , we have an overpopulation .

But the fact is , at street level , commonsense prevails , and citizens ignore both the church's decrees and the government's programmes . Ordinary people " get it " . Many do not couple up . Amongst the Gummy crew of  piss-heads , it's a 50 / 50 split between the marrieds , and the permanently singles . I know more well educated , very presentable guys and dolls here , than anywhere else . Back in NZ , all , absolutely " all " of my cronies are married with children .

Gummy we cant feed 7billion long term....take out fossil fuels and maybe we can feed 2billion....if govn's dont get involved in birth control then nature will......

Where does the Philippines get its food from? I believe it imports a substantial amount?  If some countriews with excess no longer sell it on the open market, just how will you eat?


Hello Steven : I have not been snubbing your replies , got a mind-feckingly slow Toshiba lap-top and a dial-up that is slower than the carrier pigeon !

.... Gummy wishes we had less people . 2  billion sounds a tidy , sustainable number . But we got 7 billion , that is the reality .... and forecasts ( if you bother to believe them , that the planet will top out at near 10 billion , another " tidy " figure . )

But at this juncture , we're not short of food .......... it's just not distributed evenly ...... and then there's the Americans with their idiotic bio-fuels subsidies , converting 200 million tonnes or so of corn into ethanol , annually ... a mere 1.4 or 1.7 energy conversion factor . Plonkers !

... yes , we are net rice importers of rice , the staple diet of the Philippines .. been that way ever since a feck-head called Ferdinand Marcos took over the country , and corrupted the citizenry . Never had a surplus of rice production since him .What can you do ?

Time for you to spend up a might GBH and dispose of that Toshiba with prejudice...a small fire should do it.

 You input is appreciated your means to do so unequal to the out it goes.

 Stay well..! Mon Ami.

Hello Count ! ....... spiffingly marvellous to catch up with you old friend . All hunkadory down at the Ponderosa , Hoss Boss JK and Little Joe-Goofy behaving themselves ?

.... and where's that silly Kunst got to ? .... arranging a celebration for the " Swiss Yodellers & Lederhosen Party " no doubt ....

Let's face it , they couldn't make a worse dog's breakfast of  running the  country than National or Labour have  , could they !

Viva le Revolution !!!

Viva le Revolution...!  stay well.

While I agree that it isn't the kids fault if they have irresponsible parents who shouldn't have got pregnant in the first place and that we have to deal with the situation as it is, if you really do feel about this and want to do something you don't have to wait for the govt in charge (whichever it may be) to take action.

Taking initiatives yourself is actually OK! is a good place to start. You probably won't save the 270,000 kids apparently living in poverty, but it's better than doing nothing while lamenting about the situation.

I read somewhere that it has been reported that some women with abusive boyfriends who want to get rid of these individuals are sometimes threatened by them that they will "dob in" the mothers to WINZ - saying they have been in a relationship with the women - and the way the "rules" are written, the mother would therefore be judged as claiming the DPB unlawfully (whether WINZ would punish someone on such an allegation - I have no idea, but I suppose the threat, whether real or imagined, might come into play). 

The Big Kahuna saves us from all this type of madness that arises out of state determined "rules" on how one should structure their living arrangements. 

Many women I know on the DPB live only blocks away from their own caring parents in  (largely) empty own homes - but instead the women choose to rent because they can due to the way the accommodation supplement/benefit "rules" work.  Same goes for superannuitants I know who live alone because their benefit would be lowered if they decided to share accommodation with their children, or the person next door.  

The Big Kahuna solves all this.  Flat rate welfare for all, flat rate tax for all.  Those with accummulated capital either put that capital to work for a realistic return or sit back and enjoy the good life passive investments while paying more tax.  The important point is - those with accummulated capital aren't going to starve - they have options, just like many on benefits.  Get rid of the disincentives to work or to put your capital to work, and the disincentives to self-help - that's the main thrust of the Kahuna.



It doesn't work that way, Kate, believe me. Almost every DPB beneficiary will have at some stage someone, usually an ex bf or a jealous ex gf  ringing up WINZ claiming that X has a partner. The test is that there must be in a relationship in the nature of marriage, and there is quite a complex criteria set in law around assessing that. It requires a whole lot more than a nightly bonk from some silly bloke.

As I said, I hve no idea whether WINZ acts on these matters but the threat of it might indeed deter some women from calling the police to oust such a person who has been cohabitting for whatever period of time with them.

We dont need to be god centered at all....just ppl / community centered....


You are so right steven.  It is a fact that long term sustainable solutions to community issues need the buyin of that community.  If it simply comes form the govt down telling people what they need, without the community buyin, it will not work. One size fits all, doesn't work in reality.  Much as do gooders may believe it does.

Then National is foolish but from listening to JK last night I dont think this is the case.  To me the way MMP works means that a small right or left wing party potentially robs MPs from both sides of the ACT robs MPs off National and Labour, thus helping the right.... Right now the Green's are looking like 10+%.....12 MPs....which greatly helps the left.


Stop yelling.

Or go somewhere else and do it.

Wrong, there is an even bigger prblem than debt that cant be solved economically, that of Peak energy...

Global enslavement wont happen because globalisation will die......we will be going back to local and such complexity as the banksters wont be it wont be supported.

Oh and debt is something we took on to buy houses and cars and trinkets thinking it was a way to "wealth" without actually working for it or producing a good along the way...they couldnt enslave us if we hadnt been greedy and stupid.



House prices and rents  went nuts under labour because of their policies subsidies and working for families. A vote for goff is a vote for NZ to live in a false economy held up by Govt handouts.

Who won is now irrelevant....who responds to the call to exercise their right to vote is all that remains.

 If the poor or poorer than before ,come out to vote Labor will probably form a coalition with  Greens and one or two other...

 Low voter turnout ...National will canter home and sell the farm.

As to last night  ..for the record Alex.

Round Three..............Desperate Vs Smug


The  challenger comes out hard deciding volume over power is the way to go this time...jab jab jab forgetting to move the head around is living dangerous. Lands the best shot with Sale of Assets the most potent of the in your face jabs.

 The Chump oops ! Champ absorbs a lot of the punishment but clearly appears uncomfortable when the word poor is mentioned in conjunction wilth children unhurt , the champ throws a few solid swings without connecting flush this round.

 His best chance of the uppercut squandered when the CGT swing failed to connect twice...the right hook of you'll be borrowing for the next three years or so, looked about as effective as Tua leaping up at Lennox Lewis....uh duh..! 


They go to the score cards....Duncan Garner ..supiciously call the fight even ...with his head down looking at his notes seems unconvinced of his own score.

Former National party member Paul Henry assures the audience his objectivity goes unquestioned when he calls Key a clear winner...leaving the audience gaping as to how  he arrived at that conclusion ,and if indeed his journalistic skills are the difference between reality and his opinion.

Therese Arseneau...not wanting to offend , tries to infer Goff's performance may go with swing voters but will they vote..?  and so defers to the quad in Garner.

 The worm was the least confused of the judges and clearly gave it to the challenger only to be reviewed with shouts of corruption from the blue corner.

And so that is where we are until the deciding vote is cast by the public of N.Z......or those who care enought to.

My concern with Labour in power is even more welfare handouts and higher taxes. So who will pay? The professionals on over $150k (doctors and engineers for example) will say you know what I've had enough and will join their friends in Australia where they can earn higher salaries, pay less tax and live in a country where success is ok and not frowned upon.

What could NZ look like in 3 years time with Labour in power? I'm picking it will be a place of elderly farmers, beneficiaries and public servants. We'll be like Greece, with high welfare costs and the really wealthy still paying very little in tax.

So when the debt collector comes knocking how is Phil Goff going to pay? He'll need to sell assets. You can only tax the people so much.

National have steered us through this ressession well and now we could hand over the power to Goff, Norman, Hone and Winston. It defies belief.


Delboy:  "can only tax the people so much". 

Labour is promoting a comprehensive CGT, except for owner-occupied housing.  How is introducing a 15% tax on a currently untaxed income stream onerous?  & why would these doctors & engineers go to Oz, where there is already a CGT?  (as there is in US, UK, etc etc)


Maybe Chris Trotter is correct:

"The 50 per cent of New Zealanders who identify with John Key's aspirational and anti-political persona do not want to be told that it is nothing more than a carefully constructed mask.

They don't want to know that behind the prime minister's genial and easy-going manner lies a ruthless and unforgiving politician.

The harder the news media pushes for the Key-Banks conversation to be released, the more fearful his supporters become that they will be forced to change their favourable opinion of the prime minister. And since that's something they're desperately unwilling to do, they're happily telling the pollsters they support his "principled stand".  

Maybe we'll find out soon:

This comment is also probably pretty close to the mark;

Peters has, in the final fortnight of the election campaign, emerged as the candidate for the terminally ticked off.

He fits perfectly into the mold for voters utterly unimpressed by either of the two majors and unmoved by any of the more radical minors. A vote for Winston will, for many of his supporters, be a middle-fingered salute to both John Key and his wretched asset sales and to Phil Goff and his interminable lefty moaning. 

He could be thought of as having a sort of "Occupy Parliament" intent. :-)


Also lets not forget PG wanted to put up the age of retirement.....that will frighten the OAPs..bless the old yes I expect WP / NZF to do better in this election.....

Present poll still shows NZF at our about 3%~4% though.....

Interesting number of the day, Green's at 13% a trend upwards for 6 months....almost double their long term trend....the lose of that seems to be maybe Labour's supporters are giving PG's "right wing" policies teh finger as well....


"He could be thought of....",

Maybe, as I heard this morning,  Winston could be seen as a guard dog for New Zealanders first.

Not all bad in an MMP enviroment.

Updated with iPredict daily election update

 Updated with policy costing row between Greens and Nats.

You gotta laugh - yesterday Key could work with the Greens... today they're spending too much ....

and by the way, to Steven Joyce (And Alex!): have you costed the Maori Party policies, given they seem to be National's preferred coalition partner?




Not sure if Labour policies will help the poverty issue by throwing more social benefits.   National's approach isn't that much better - nor the Greens.  What we need is a combined effort of all political parties to work together - similar to what they did many years ago on superannuation.  

Yesterday's leaders debate - I watched via the internet, within 10 mins I was turned off and found another channel to watch.

I am sick to death of those political point scoring with no substance.  Perhaps someone might wake me up when the election is over.

The OZ elections are some way off though?


Good old Labour an its massive growing group off unemployable who will never get off welfare are bleeding this country dry.Labour can't give everybody a statehouse an heat pump with Sky TV.Working tax payers are sick off paying out the unemployable.You can't rebuild a country with people who can't even get out off bed in the morning.

Time limits to all this support,get this group working for the welfare.

We had 10 years off pandering to people who will never work.

National is trying to turn this around,we have to break this welfare for life an do nothing take everything.

The country has to make these changes now.

Guyon Espiner is a seriously better adjudicator than John Campbell. Like Chairman Moa, I watched the tv3 debate for a bit then turned it off.

Wednesday nights tv1 leaders debate, with Espiner in control, promises to be a far superior debate to the charade we saw last night. That wasn't a debate, it was a friendly chat over the fence that told us nothing.


Could someone please tell me where Goffs "270,000 childrern living in poverty" figure comes from? - that's almost 1 in 3 children