I have no idea where I could 'look it up'. I'd really be grateful if you could quote the exact rule and tell me where to find it. Just a word of advice - reading anything by Rod Oram can lead to severe depression. Listening to him is worse.
Printable View
National under Holyoake did 4 terms
Due for another 4 term government methinks.
By-election outcome was good for National, esp when one news report said if trends carried over to the general election Key would be out. What a load of ****e.
Good for National because Little is even more ensconced as leader of Labour after that resounding win.
You had to go all the way back to the man from Kinloch? That was my point - in recent times governments in NZ have not lasted longer than three terms, but there has been a strong trend for parties to stay in for three consecutive terms. Could be Labour's slogan for 2017 - Three Strikes and You're Out, John.
W69, I have noted your regression from thinking swinging voter (or so you would have me believe) to diehard National. I urge you to keep reading up on National's actual successes so far, measured against their promises, and also carefully compare the policies of National vs Labour-Greens. Not just looking at your own situation, but towards the generations to follow, and the wider NZ public. Being selfish with your vote won't always provide the best result.
Still not telling us who made this 3 term rule? Pity. I am certainly not a die-hard National; but over recent elections there has been no sensible alternative. I cannot understand voters who blindly support one party - especially when you consider how they have more or less swapped places occasionally, and still follow them like Labour supporters when it's apparent they should put their energy into forming a new party, or alternatively, bite the bullet once more and find an electable leader. There is one in Labour - who come to think of it might just make a move all on his own accord.
Oh, fungus! Stop teasing El Zorro!
You know as well as I do that it's a rule of behavior derived from history.
And like all good rules, there's an exception to prove it - 1969, when National won a fourth term.
Out of interest, you might like to consider Kirk's standing in public opinion in 1969 vs his standing in 1972.
Do you think Mister Little can make a similar leap? If not, who's the Bill Rowling of the late 2010's, eh?
Rowling, who was hopeless, would run rings around Little. It amazes me that Labour, who know this, are boxing on, hope against hope, that he'll pick up support in the next ten months. He won't.
As for suggesting I was teasing eZ! That's preposterous. :scared:We both know I would never do such a thing. :t_up: