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?

Yes I agree Arandar, I thought it used to be 4 years.

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

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.

Arrander

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.

Would never wish 4 years of John Banks on the people of Epsom...now that would be cruel.

Kiwi Chick

But four years of our New Zealand Prime Minister Mr. John Key would be great for this country .Comprenez vous.

Gidday

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarians_for_Global_Action

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!

I think most of them manage to inflict quite enough damage in the existing 3 years.

Gidday

YIPPEE!

At long last I agree with Bella Babe.

Good onya mate.

Three years is more than enough for me.
Pained Govt = Pained wait.