From Kiwiblog comments:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_least_surprising_decision_of_recent_times.html#comment-498529

Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.

And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth - from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?

The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate - we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.

Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one - fresh water quality - and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.

If only those blind people following populist speakers would for once listen to sound policy and debate.

The pain of having automatic advertising on site.

Edit: There are at least two ads:

First Section: Helen Clark cleans up John Key with facts and cutting straight through the spin. John Key tries to suggest the current economic crises is a result of Labour without realising that International Factors have a bigger influence. John Key will not stop cutting Helen Clark off and states to Mark Sainsbury that he will just keep talking louder unless he is given ability to talk - not a good look.

Section Two: No clear winner.. John Key maybe.

Section Three: John Key implies that we shouldn’t be a leader on Climate Change because we are only 0.4% of world emissions. Well ponder this… Why be Nuclear Free when we are only a fraction of the size of the world?

Section Four: Somehow they get stuck in 1981 Springbok Tour. John Key states he didn’t have an opinion gets eaten by Helen Clark.

Section Five: Education. John Key rules out universal allowances talks about standards. Doesn’t really get anywhere. Much like the rest of the debate. They should mute the mic of the person who isn’t speaking.

Section Six: I’m almost asleep. This is actually quite boring. They get hit by a question about smaller parties. I still think that it should have been everyone over two hours maybe.

Summary: So much for a debate. It was terrible. And didn’t help much. However, the You Tube idea was great lots of young people involved. I would give John Key the win… The smilling assasin.

I say no.

And I’m sick of people saying it is.

And saying that the National Party will be the knight in shining armour to save us.

The reality is that we are doing pretty well.

Excerpts From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand%27s_international_rankings

• Political freedom ratings - Free; political rights and civil liberties both rated 1 (the highest score available)
• Global Peace Index - 4th, at 1.35
• Corruption - In a three-way tie for least corrupt, at 9.4 on index
• Economic Freedom - 5th equal freest, at 81.6 on index
• Failed States Index, 172/177, being one of the few “sustainable” states in the world.
• Global Prosperity Index - 5th country in overall
• Ease of paying tax - 9th easiest
• Top Country Award - New Zealand has won the honor two years in a row (2007, 2008) by Wanderlust Magazine.

From: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4327/

New Zealand Election Tightens;

National Party drops 7% to 40.5% to be just ahead of Labour (37.5%)

In early October 2008 the New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows National Party support at 40.5% (down 7%), a tight lead over the Labour Party 37.5% (up 1%). If the Election were this weekend there would be a hung Parliament in New Zealand with either major party capable of forming a governing coalition.

Support for the Greens 9% (up 2.5%) has jumped to its highest level since April, while support for NZ First is 4% (down 1%), ACT NZ 3.5% (up 2%), the Maori Party 2% (up 0.5%), Progressive Alliance 1% (up 1%), United Future 1% (up 0.5%) and Others and Independents 1.5% (up 0.5%).

National Party tertiary education spokesman Paul Hutchison said students should be able to decide for themselves whether they wanted compulsory membership of student associations.

“I’m aware there are concerns by some that say there isn’t strong accountability for the money they get,” he said.

“All the time, I hear murmurings of there being inappropriate usage of student levies by the unions.”

It was important that accounts were “absolutely transparent” to show that each student dollar was being spent well on students, he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4707318a6530.html

Dr Hutchison has stated three times this year that he wants to see Students’ Associations become voluntary. Yet it is not a National Party Policy.

For the record Dr Hutchison and National:

• Students’ Associations are incorporated.
• They are required to be externally audited.
• They are required to be registered with the companies office
• They are required to hold AGMs and keep their books open.

So where is this inappropriate use and mismanagement? The reality is there isn’t any. If there was there would be lots more cases of fraud. Which there isn’t.