Our aim is to be your guide to living life to the full. The keys to staying vital and active for longer are within our grasp! Read more...
Become a GrownUp and join our Community. Stay up to date with our weekly newsletter, discuss topics with other members, grab some great member-only offers and so much more.
Select the radio station you would like to listen to live.
Member since 23 Nov 2009
Member from Stratford
I have been thinking...
The last time there was a single term government in NZ was 1971 I think.
It seems therefore that we think governments deserve/need two terms (at least) to make a difference.
Elections are expensive to run. If we are going to give them a minimum of six years shouldn't we stop this wasteful business of a mid cycle election?
If it takes something like most of the first year for a new government to settle down and get themselves sorted out, and
if they have to spend the best part of the third year gearing up to and being in election mode, then
maybe we should just extend the electoral cycle and give them at least a couple of good (middle) years to get the job done.
What do you think?
Member since 28 May 2008
Member from Wrights Bush
Yes I agree Arandar, I thought it used to be 4 years.
Member since 29 Feb 2008
Member from Christchurch CBD
yeah give them FIVE years to do everything they promised, then if they have , give the a fat bonus and another term
BUT !! If they haven't !! Then The Firing Squad be utilised
Member since 02 Nov 2006
Member from Linwood
Who can guarantee that a Govt is proficient "to get the job done." Depends on what the criteria is. If it takes two years to get a court case moving what chance has Parliament got when it makes promises to implement changes in four years.
This is what Labour did as well National. Even the cost of a referendum is no guarantee as the Govt. is not bound to go with the status quo. There seem to be no restraints on Govt. carrying out unpopular ideas. The opposition has to be able to block by numbers on side. Three years is long enough for me suffer incompetents and drones.
Member since 31 Jan 2007
Member from Mosgiel
An extended term would be ideal for the present administration under our New Zealand Prime Minister Mr. John Key but fancy an extended term under the present Labour Group. Their would be so much internal wrangling that there wouldn't be any time to run the Country.
Member since 09 May 2008
Member from Palmerston North
Would never wish 4 years of John Banks on the people of Epsom...now that would be cruel.
But four years of our New Zealand Prime Minister Mr. John Key would be great for this country .Comprenez vous.
Member since 19 Dec 2006
Member from Hampden
The buggers should be given a life sentence, preferably on the end of a rope.
It wouldn't matter how long they have actually because we would still be ruled by the parliamentarians for global action like we have been for years despit the new or pretty faces that you think are leading us.
Member since 28 Oct 2006
Member from Eltham
The length of term has been discussed several times that I can remember and there always seems to be as many "Pluses" as "Minuses".
And regardless of what Benny thinks extra time with JK and Banksie does just not bare thinking about!
Member since 29 Jun 2006
Member from Shirley
I think most of them manage to inflict quite enough damage in the existing 3 years.
At long last I agree with Bella Babe.
Good onya mate.
Member since 20 Oct 2010
Member from Great Barrier
Three years is more than enough for me. Pained Govt = Pained wait.
To post a comment on this discussion please log in or register