Friday, December 31, 2010

Happy New Year & 2011 Predictions

Happy 2011 anyone whom stumbles upon this blog.

Quick predictions for 2011:


Who will win the Rugby World Cup?

I really hope NZ, but I'm worried about the Aussies.


Will National get a majority in the general election?

Yes. My reasoning is this.

1) Winston 1st won't make the threshold so whatever vote he gets will be divided up proportionally to the parties which make it into parliament.

2) In 2002 the Labour Party briefly polled over 50% & they started talking about governing alone. This scared the horses & Labour's vote dropped by 10% on polling day. The difference with the Nats is they've been polling over 50% for most of time since they made it into office. Coupled with John Key who is more moderate than Helen Clark, I reckon people are comfortable with the idea of a Nat majority govt.


Will Julia Gillard's government make it to 2012?

No. There will be a by-election or some controversy which will force a general election.


How will be the next NZ Labour leader?

David Cargill... I mean Cunliffe. Who will spook the Nats at some point.




""Its overly strong reaction to Israel over this issue suggests the GoNZ sees this flap as an opportunity to bolster its credibility with the Arab community, and by doing so, perhaps, help NZ lamb and other products gain greater access to a larger and more lucrative market."

The best thing about the Wikileaks is that they remind us how cynical & duplicitous the Clark govt (1999 – 2008) was (for those of us that need reminding).
Wikileaks alleges that Clark was driven by securing trade deals with Arab countries when she took an unusually strong stance against Israel.  If this is true, then such cynical behaviour is in part forgivable given she at least had NZ trade at heart. 
However, I remember this incident was at a time when the opposition National Party was making real head way in the polls.  I suspect Clark was more motivated by keeping the Nats out of the media than any trade deals. 
Either way, things were not what they seemed with the 5th Labour govt.



"Senior MOD officials (strictly protect) tell us it was not until Finance Minister Michael Cullen pointed out in a subsequent cabinet meeting that New Zealand's absence from Iraq might cost NZ dairy conglomerate Fonterra the lucrative dairy supply contract it enjoyed under the United Nations Oil for Food program," the cable said.

It said the prime minister "found a face-saving compromise" by sending non-combat engineers to be embedded with British forces.

I'm rather surprised this article is nowhere to be found in the Herald or on Stuff.

Cullen is of course correct in his assessment.

So in spite of Labour's holier-than-thou rhetoric on Iraq, the only reason why they sent the NZ Army was to secure a contract. My god, if that isn't blood for money, I don't know what is.


I believe a National govt. would've also sent NZ Defence Forces (depending on the make-up of the coalition), but I suspect their primary reason would be to help topple Sadam Hussain. However you feel about taking-out Sadam, it's a better reason than a Fonterra contract!


And lets not beat around the bush, non-combat engineers = the New Zealand Army. These guys aren't civilians.



I haven't updated this blog in a while, but this story deserves maximum exposure.
"The only reason that a major shift forward in NZ-US relations failed to materialise under Helen Clark was because the Labour Government
wished to utilise the anti-nuclear issue as an electoral weapon against
the resurgent National Party under Don Brash.''
^ This is obvious as it is now as it was back then.  The billboard says it all – Clark sacrificed NZ's relationship with USA for votes. 
Labour could use the USA in it's political games without fear because they're never going to bite back.  The world's only superpower is a democracy with many shared values with NZ & represents zero threat to our country.  At the end of the day, the US is the only thing keeping China & other aggressors at bay.  Which makes it all the more shameless for Labour to use them as a punching bag. 
Labour would never be so reckless with the China relationship given their propensity – but if they were they'd be safe in the knowledge the US would protect us.
The 2005 election is over 5 years ago now, yet Labour's appalling transgressions live on.  From Labour & Winston Peter's huge overspend (defined as a corrupt practice in the law), to the opportunistic abuse of the relationship with the USA. 
And to cap it off, New Zealand would not be borrowing $300 a week just to pay the bills if we had a Brash government.