Bennett wins Waitakere on recount

21/12/2011 4:18:38 p.m.

smith wrote:

Ms Bennett win Waitakere by just nine votes. The Electoral Commission was also looking into the nine people who voted twice in Waitakere. Sound suspicious!

20/12/2011 6:55:50 p.m.

cee wrote:

Actually distaste is in my own mouth for saying such a horrid thing about the wealthy. Sorry - you are not the enemy, greed and corruption is. Its okay to be rich - in fact the more money we have, the more we can help others.

20/12/2011 5:44:54 p.m.

cee wrote:

Judging from what is happening within the world economy more of a possibility we will all end up on the benefit then we will all end up rich ... how's that for equality. LOL! I sense the squirming and the distaste in the rich man's mouth.

20/12/2011 12:26:09 a.m.

Nikki wrote:

@ Mike
Who informed u the votes would have gone the same the had the 30% who didn't vote vote. Comprehend? Or shall I write slower too? A bit of education for your limited intelligence, don't believe everything you read. Many Labour supporters don't answer the surveys because they don't have phones/or unlisted numbers. Just for you here's the inside scoop... most of us had spent our benefits on drugs and were too wasted to get to the polling booths aye. Shame I didn't have the gas to pick up 9 of my mates had I known it would be that close (yes I voted, I limit my drugs and alcohol intake you ignoramus). I hope you do/n't lose your job and end up on the benefit, you may eat your words just as sepuloni may have to!

19/12/2011 9:56:26 a.m.

Mike wrote:

@ Clarke. I can see your intelligence levels are rather low, so I will not use BIG words and I will write slowly so that you can also understand! Of the people that bothered to vote, National had nearly 50% of the vote. The other 52% was split between the other parties. Statistically, of the 30% plus that did not vote, the votes would have gone the same way. Very difficult for someone of your limited ability to try and understand I know, but don’t let it worry you too much. Just know that we are in safe hands for the next three years. I also hope your benefit is not effected too much!!!!

18/12/2011 9:09:26 p.m.

Clarke wrote:

It remains to be seen how many people a National government will kill Christopher... good to see that righties are using irrelevent and unrealistic facts to try to prove a point. The real point however is the result of the election was.... 33 percent of the total eligible voters voted for the right. 66 percent either abstained or voted to the left... so John key has only an imaginary mandate... not a real mandate... not a moral mandate... merely a techincality of law... in reality with a result like that it shows that the majority of us have no confidence in any of our politicians including the John Key as 66 percent of voters didnt vote for him or any of his coalition partners.

18/12/2011 5:21:04 p.m.

AaronC wrote:

Wow how dodgy is our voting system/ are our vote counters? Should have been exactly the same outcome with each count! What the hell?

17/12/2011 6:08:35 p.m.

Boyd wrote:

Hey Patsy to be gracious in defeat you must expect your opponent to be humble in victory, which is what most National supporters are lacking in.

17/12/2011 12:17:02 p.m.

Christopher wrote:

A Labour / Green Govt. would have bankrupt NZ.

The Greens alone had a huge number of spending policies and none of them are costed. Some were eye-wateringly expensive. The Greens' policies would add about $25 billion to debt. over the next four years, in addition to what Labour is already planning.
Even if Labour agreed 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. NZ simply could afford a big-spending Government like that at this time. That would take the total to around $22 billion of extra borrowing.

A left coalition would cost tens of thousands of jobs and massively ramp up debt.

Some of the looney left policies included:

· 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.

There would also be significant new costs for employers such as raising the minimum wage to 66 per cent of the average wage, increasing company tax to 30 per cent as part of the earthquake levy and imposing a 35-hour working week.

A left based government would have quickly reverted New Zealand to the high-spending ways of its predecessor, which ramped up government spending by 50 % in its last five years in office. That high spending, high debt scenario is the exact opposite of what the vulnerable world economic situation demands of NZ.

Excessive 'Welfareism' and spending is so destructive and normal voting Kiwis saw this hence the correct election outcome.

17/12/2011 11:21:59 a.m.

Boyd wrote:

Funny National supporters here. A 9 vote win and suddenly it seems the public are confident in Paula Bennett? A Cabinet minister winning by the slimmest of margins to a Labour no-name is hardly what I'd call confidence. It seems quite a lot of people in Waitakere are not fooled by this so called 'lefty taxpayer bashing cospiracy' tripe that victimised Nat supporters are trying to shove down our throats. Bennett was almost taken down by the monster she was trying to control Hahaa