Congratulations 48% [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

caspernz

30th November 2011, 20:07

I was hoping for 60% or greater, Don Brash and at least another 2 Act MPs and no Mana or NZ First or Greens. We need to start mining of more minerals and dredging ironsand from the sea for export dollars and jobs. How does it work when people want no mining which in turn means less income and tax, but at the same time they want cradle to the grave welfare? We should have our diggers in the sand, not our heads.

All nice and well to preserve our country, there's gotta be some middle ground between conservation and utilising our mineral resources?

Oh, and if you didn't vote or wasted your vote, don't come crying on here.....

And what's with NZ First getting such a following? Surely Kiwis memories aren't that short??

carbonhed

30th November 2011, 20:09

Reminds me of the immortal words of that notorious cocksucker Michael Cullen... “We won, they lost, let’s do lunch”.

Three more years leftards... three more years. :woohoo:

FJRider

30th November 2011, 20:15

There's no apostrophe in vegies either.

There's more important things to worry about ... than a bloody apostrophe ...

But the Supermarket that does NOT Charge GST on such ... will be popular beyond their dreams ...

Ocean1

30th November 2011, 20:16

Mark my words this is just the start!!!!

I'm sorry, you're quoting the Harold; quoting Forest & Bird?

And we're to take this seriously?

:laugh:

Ocean1

30th November 2011, 20:18

But the Supermarket that does NOT Charge GST on such ... will be popular beyond their dreams ...

Now there's something to worry about: supermarkets charging GST on apostrophi !!!

FJRider

30th November 2011, 20:19

... apostrophi !!!

Hitch is coming to get you ... :facepalm:

Oakie

30th November 2011, 20:28

I've just spent a pleasant 20 minutes browsing through the old BDOTGNZA Social Group posts. This was the first thing I read when I ventured back into the forums.

It's the betrayal that hurts the most...

Ohhh Feck. I am embarrassed. Excuse me while I go and flagellate myself in the corner.

scott411

30th November 2011, 20:33

thanks to the 48% that voted National we are now screwed. Now they have total power they don't have ask or consulate they just do it. Proof http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769949 Mark my words this is just the start!!!! Sayer of doom Richard

thank you, welcome to democracy, just becasue you don't agree, does not make it wrong

Choices, National, sell off minority share in assetts, and keep most other stuff the same, work with small coalition partners, not much will change, not the best option i agree,

other the option,

Labour, led by Goff, taxs cuts for the ones that already pay the least, rises for the ones that pay the most, the free GST on fruit would cost a heap to set up and enforce, and these things are price pointed so no massive cuts would be made

propped up by Mana bunch's of Looneys who have never made this country anything, only worked to tear it apart,
the Greens who have come back to the centre (and have polled well because of it)
and NZ First (shakes head and walks away), spend more, borrow more,
oh, but make the hard decision to put super up in 2030????? and have 6 more election cycle bribes to last for it)

yes, it was a hell of a decision wasn't it, i chose National as the less of two evils, no one really stood for what I wanted,

everyone says we want to be more like australia, the reason australia is going ahead is because of mining, they talk about their 2 tier economy because everything else is struggling, i get that we do not want to mine in national parks, but you can not have it both ways, we need to sell more and export more to go forward, and although the greens had a good idea about exports, it was a very long term outlook that would have some risk of not coming off, no other party really came up with everything

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 20:34

There's more important things to worry about ... than a bloody apostrophe ...

Only if the illiterate want to be taken seriously. If they don't understand the subtleties of grammar, what other fundamental knowledge could they be lacking? The BDOTGNZA also worries about Parkinson's sufferers being allowed near full stop keys.

Woodman

30th November 2011, 20:38

What the fuck is this BDOTGNZA Thing? and, whats it got to do with National?

FJRider

30th November 2011, 20:38

... The BDOTGNZA also worries about Parkinson's sufferers being allowed near full stop keys.

Ok ... my secret is out. :whocares:

Take two commers ... add an exclamination mark ... and call somebody that cares ... :sunny:

Ntoxcated

30th November 2011, 20:39

There's no apostrophe in vegies either. No sympathy from the BDOTGNZA on that score.

Although, vege's may be appropriate if you consider that the apostrophe is indicating a contraction as opposed to possession.

Mental Trousers

30th November 2011, 20:42

Oh, and if you didn't vote or wasted your vote, don't come crying on here.....

No such thing as a wasted vote. Everyone that voted did their part. Those who didn't vote really should shut up though.

And what's with NZ First getting such a following? Surely Kiwis memories aren't that short??

Did you see who was voting for Mana?!?! Young, well educated, inner city dwelling professionals. WTF?!?!?!

At least it was predictable who would vote for Winston.

Mully

30th November 2011, 20:45

Now they have total power they don't have ask or consulate they just do it.

I hate it when people don't consulate with me. Or Embassy, either.

Only if the illiterate want to be taken seriously. If they don't understand the subtleties of grammar, what other fundamental knowledge could they be lacking?

It's funny the number of people qualified to comment on Governments who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're". It amuses me that often the same people are berating the implementation of National Standards in schools.

Grammar is the difference between "let's eat, Grandma!" and "let's eat Grandma!"

FJRider

30th November 2011, 20:46

Did you see who was voting for Mana?!?! Young, well educated, inner city dwelling professionals. WTF?!?!?!

And which poll done (and who by) discovered this ... ???

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 20:47

Although, vege's may be appropriate if you consider that the apostrophe is indicating a contraction as opposed to possession.

You're saying that vege needs an apostrophe too? And Bob needs two? How many apostrophes are needed in radar or scuba? And what about fridge? Is it a contraction of refrigerator or Frigidaire?

Mental Trousers

30th November 2011, 20:48

And which poll done (and who by) discovered this ... ???

Petra was interviewing them during the Election Night coverage. Jaw dropping stuff.

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 20:50

Multiple exclamation marks are no more excited than is one. Multiple question marks do not increase the extent of the question. And I blame Facebook for the rampant, unnecessary and alarming use of the ellipsis.

mashman

30th November 2011, 20:51

Oh, and if you didn't vote or wasted your vote, don't come crying on here.....

No such thing as a wasted vote. Everyone that voted did their part. Those who didn't vote really should shut up though.

Why should thoses', who didn't use their vote's stop crying or shut up? What makes' you so different to those's who didn't use they're votes's? Especially if they chose to use their vote in such a way?

FJRider

30th November 2011, 20:53

Petra was interviewing them during the Election Night coverage. Jaw dropping stuff.

So ... secret vote's ... aren't secret anymore ... ???

I told a newspaper reporter I was doing nuclear research ... :innocent:

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 20:54

So ... secret vote's

Vote's being a contraction of?

Edbear

30th November 2011, 20:54

Only if the illiterate want to be taken seriously. If they don't understand the subtleties of grammar, what other fundamental knowledge could they be lacking? The BDOTGNZA also worries about Parkinson's sufferers being allowed near full stop keys.

I wonder how many have that affliction... :innocent:

I hate it when people don't consulate with me. Or Embassy, either.

It's funny the number of people qualified to comment on Governments who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're". It amuses me that often the same people are berating the implementation of National Standards in schools.

Grammar is the difference between "let's eat, Grandma!" and "let's eat Grandma!"

Typos aside, so many fail to understand that poor spelling and grammar tend to make one's views irrelevant. Those in positions of authority look down on people who can't spell or write correctly. However much people complain that this is unfair, it is a simple and undeniable fact that will not change despite many in higher positions, including teachers, demonstrating poor spelling and grammar themselves.

If one wants to have their argument discussed or acknowledged, bad spelling and grammar focus the attention on that instead of the argument itself. It's like standing up to speak about a serious matter while dressed in a flouro pink tutu and no knickers. Few would be paying any attention to what is being said.

nosebleed

30th November 2011, 20:58

What the fuck is this BDOTGNZA Thing? and, whats it got to do with National?

Black Op's division, from what I can see.

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:00

Vote's being a contraction of?

According to my therapist ... I have multiple personalities ...

SO ... I have MULTIPLE votes .... :innocent:

Mental Trousers

30th November 2011, 21:00

Why should thoses', who didn't use their vote's stop crying or shut up? What makes' you so different to those's who didn't use they're votes's? Especially if they chose to use their vote in such a way?

Don't participate then don't complain how things turned out. Not voting is implicitly accepting the outcome.

So ... secret vote's ... aren't secret anymore ... ???

All the people they were interviewing were more than happy to talk about who they voted for and why.

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 21:01

Grammar is the difference between "let's eat, Grandma!" and "let's eat Grandma!"

Not to mention helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 21:03

According to my therapist SO ... I have MULTIPLE votes ....

Do not pass Go; do not collect $200.

scumdog

30th November 2011, 21:04

Not to mention helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Ah, that old chestnut.

Lucky horse...or lucky Uncle Jack

nosebleed

30th November 2011, 21:05

So ... secret vote's ... aren't secret anymore ... ???

I told a newspaper reporter I was doing nuclear research ... :innocent:

Why the sudden indignation?
Plenty of people on here have made their political affiliations known, and I've never seen you cry foul before.

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:07

All the people they were interviewing were more than happy to talk about who they voted for and why.

ANYBODY that would vote for the Mana party (and admit it) is seriously in need of a REAL life (MY opinion anyway) ... and will talk to anybody ...

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:10

Do not pass Go; do not collect $200.

If it works for us ... who are you to argue ... ???

Ntoxcated

30th November 2011, 21:13

You're saying that vege needs an apostrophe too? And Bob needs two? How many apostrophes are needed in radar or scuba? And what about fridge? Is it a contraction of refrigerator or Frigidaire?

Well, radar and scuba are acronyms rather than contractions, which are now also considered common nouns (according to wiki). Bob is a pet name. But yes, fridge and vege are colloquial short versions of their original forms and shouldn't be considered as contractions either. But seriously, I was only stirring. Perhaps I should have added an appropriate smiley :innocent:

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:14

Why the sudden indignation?
Plenty of people on here have made their political affiliations known, and I've never seen you cry foul before.

I'm not "crying foul" ... merely doubting the truth of claimed affiiations to a reporter (and of their occupational status ...)

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 21:18

Perhaps I should have added an appropriate smiley

Jesus wept. If you desire prolonged tenure on a planet policed by the Brave Defenders, I recommend reading their charter, particularly the List of Intense Dislikes. And reading said list with a measure of urgency. You could start at S for smileys, just to be on the safe side.

Virago

30th November 2011, 21:19

...And what's with NZ First getting such a following? Surely Kiwis memories aren't that short??

It is a well known fact that New Zealand First voters must have their age higher than their IQ. An increasing number of New Zealanders qualify.

Howie

30th November 2011, 21:20

We need to start mining of more minerals and dredging ironsand from the sea for export dollars and jobs. How does it work when people want no mining which in turn means less income and tax, but at the same time they want cradle to the grave welfare? We should have our diggers in the sand, not our heads.

The interesting word you use is "We" As far as I can tell with a quick look at Bathurst Resources web site they are a mainly Australian owned Company so 90% or more of the profit goes offshore and we get a big hole in beautiful landscape. Interestingly if you read the managing directors report from the 29/11/11. The project Economics make interesting reading. All NZ gains out of it is maybe a a couple of hundred jobs (if they can fine fully qualified NZ residents?) and wait for out of the current price for coking coal of US$250 per Tonne they project costs of $US145-$167 per tonne including the amazing sum of US$2 per Tonne in royalties to the NZ Goverment.

So NZ scores big out of a prime resource and screws a great Landscape. Think I might get a better return out of investing in some shares!

Out of interest Have you ever visited the Denniston Plateau and experinced what an amazingly different enviouroment it is?

mashman

30th November 2011, 21:21

Don't participate then don't complain how things turned out. Not voting is implicitly accepting the outcome.

Waaa ha ha haaaaaa... I participate every day and that gives me the right to use my vote anyway I choose, and I did use my vote, just not in the "traditional" way. Would you say that those who choose not to pay their rego shouldn't be allowed to ride?

Hitcher

30th November 2011, 21:26

Out of interest Have you ever visited the Denniston Plateau and experinced what an amazingly different enviouroment it is?

Yes I have. On many occasions. 7.5m of rainfall a year, the world's only downhill opencast coal mine, and some of the rarest and most valuable types of coal available anywhere, including that used to make carbon fibre. I was sort of following your argument up until that point.

Brett

30th November 2011, 21:31

Like I said - brainless fucks. Only a country of morons would elect a right wing government during a global recession in a country with a severly eroded tax base....Cut cut cut etc

Right wing...BAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. National are very centrist.

Mental Trousers

30th November 2011, 21:32

Waaa ha ha haaaaaa... I participate every day and that gives me the right to use my vote anyway I choose, and I did use my vote, just not in the "traditional" way. Would you say that those who choose not to pay their rego shouldn't be allowed to ride?

They shouldn't get caught and if they do get caught they should stfu and accept the penalty. Choosing not to play by the rules implies you are choosing to accept the penalty for going against them.

Not voting means you agree with the outcome no matter what it is. If you don't agree then why not lend your weight to making the outcome something else??

There's only been one election I didn't vote since I was old enough to be eligible. That one happened to be my wedding day. I had other things to worry about that day.

Berries

30th November 2011, 21:44

There is NO GST on fruit and vege's ... if you grow your own. Those that dont or wont ... pay the price, and I have NO symphathy for them.
How are your bananas going?

mashman

30th November 2011, 21:44

They shouldn't get caught and if they do get caught they should stfu and accept the penalty. Choosing not to play by the rules implies you are choosing to accept the penalty for going against them.

Not voting means you agree with the outcome no matter what it is. If you don't agree then why not lend your weight to making the outcome something else??

There's only been one election I didn't vote since I was old enough to be eligible. That one happened to be my wedding day. I had other things to worry about that day.

That wasn't an answer.

True, I am ready to accept any outcome. So if we agree on an policy that is at odds with that being put forwards by our govt, because you ticked a piece of paper you can air your views, and I can't? Seems a bit silly really.

er, er, er... :eek5: (I missed England batter Germany 5 - 1 on my wedding day)

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:47

... Would you say that those who choose not to pay their rego shouldn't be allowed to ride?

If I recall correctly ... they are NOT allowed (by law) to ride bikes that are NOT registered (unless taking it to a place or repair)

Berries

30th November 2011, 21:51

Petra was interviewing them during the Election Night coverage. Jaw dropping stuff.
Yeah, she is hot.

If I am allowed to say that as a non voter.

mashman

30th November 2011, 21:51

If I recall correctly ... they are NOT allowed (by law) to ride bikes that are NOT registered (unless taking it to a place or repair)

I was asking for a personal opinion, not a legal definition.

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:51

How are your bananas going?

Luxury items should be taxed accordingly ... they ARE and imported item ...

My apple ... and plum tree's, are fine ...

FJRider

30th November 2011, 21:55

I was asking for a personal opinion, not a legal definition.

You got BOTH ... which part of the answer did you NOT understand ... ???

The rules and LAWS are for all, not just for those that find them inconvenient ...

Robert Taylor

30th November 2011, 22:15

mashman

30th November 2011, 22:18

You got BOTH ... which part of the answer did you NOT understand ... ???

The rules and LAWS are for all, not just for those that find them inconvenient ...

The part where I wasn't asking YOU in the first place.

Aha.

Mental Trousers

30th November 2011, 22:23

That wasn't an answer.

True, I am ready to accept any outcome. So if we agree on an policy that is at odds with that being put forwards by our govt, because you ticked a piece of paper you can air your views, and I can't? Seems a bit silly really.

er, er, er... :eek5: (I missed England batter Germany 5 - 1 on my wedding day)

The answer is they can ride. Just don't get caught and if that does happen, don't complain.

Opting out by not voting is opting out of everything that goes with it as well. If there's something you object to or agree with the system for voicing those is voting.

mashman

30th November 2011, 22:36

The answer is they can ride. Just don't get caught and if that does happen, don't complain.

Opting out by not voting is opting out of everything that goes with it as well. If there's something you object to or agree with the system for voicing those is voting.

Damn, I thought you were going to say something entirely different :shifty:

I wasn't opting out in my eyes. I was making a choice. I voted... albeit by not ticking the piece of paper. As has been mentioned elsewhere, if there was the option of "Noone" on the piece of paper, I'd go to the polling booth and tick it. There isn't, so I don't, but I have still voted.

SPman

30th November 2011, 22:41

Meh, we'd be screwed regardless who 'won' the election.

Unless it was Bubbles the Chimp.... More than likely.....

Berries

30th November 2011, 22:42

Opting out by not voting is opting out of everything that goes with it as well.
Well it's not really is it. Everyone is subject to 'everything that goes with it' whether they vote or not.

mashman

30th November 2011, 22:44

Meanwhile back on topic... fuck it, if they're gonna mine, mine away for all the benefit the country will get out of it. I give a shit not anymore (well a lot less than I used to, almost back to "normal"). Sell the assets, cut back on services, do what the fuck you like to the country and its people... there's noone to stop you... it is inevitable Mr Anderson.

slowpoke

30th November 2011, 23:15

Not voting means you agree with the outcome no matter what it is. If you don't agree then why not lend your weight to making the outcome something else??

I would have agreed with you until this year. I'm quite interested in politics, actually care about what the pollies are saying/doing, and realise politics are more important than the sports score on the weekend (although I'm interested in that too) as politics actually have some bearing on our lives.

But, this year not voting did not mean I "agree with the outcome", it meant I couldn't see any acceptable outcome. There were major flaws with both parties policies that I simply could not stomach. Labour punish those who work hard and/or smart and many would argue they reward the opposite, and selling off State assets is a complete anathema to me. I refuse to endorse either strategy.

So what were the options: the Greens who's policies are well intentioned but economically unsustainable if we want to maintain any standard of living, those with narrow agenda's and even less ideas, or the just plain loopy..

So I voted for the Abstention Party. I'm not proud of it, but I'd be outright ashamed if I'd endorsed what was on offer this year, and Key, Goff and co should be similarly ashamed that they've alienated so many of the voting public.

jazfender

1st December 2011, 02:07

Not voting means you agree with the outcome no matter what it is. If you don't agree then why not lend your weight to making the outcome something else??

How can you say not participating in something means you agree with it? That doesn't make sense.

Short of forming their own political party, a lot of people feel there are no candidates they would consider lending their weight to.

A million people chose not to vote, lowest since the 1880s. This should be a massive wakeup call.

sinfull

1st December 2011, 05:56

Who's mining what ? And what do NZers get out of this mining ? 200 jobs was it, cool ! That'll help much !

davereid

1st December 2011, 06:49

I was making a choice. I voted... albeit by not ticking the piece of paper.

Yes some times it seems there are two choices.

Would you like to be sodomised by John or by Phil ?

Those who don't like Phil and choose John, allow John to claim consent.

Those who don't want to be sodomised by anyone and choose neither are then told they have no right to complain !.

Not voting for something you hate is as valid a choice as any other.

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 07:03

A million people chose not to vote, lowest since the 1880s. This should be a massive wakeup call.

when there is an oops in your post some bastard is bound to point it out.
The million people that chose not to vote was the highest since ... The voter turnout was the lowest, that is the number of people who chose to vote was at it lowest. I blame the demise of Mcgullgady Serious and Bill and Ben Party for the lack of turn out as these parties at least gave people a reason to vote even if they didn't like the 'real' politicians. Or perhaps it was the silly advertising rules where by your local radio station couldn't link the voting to its weather report and therefore remind people to vote.

Oscar

1st December 2011, 07:13

Like I said - brainless fucks. Only a country of morons would elect a right wing government during a global recession in a country with a severly eroded tax base....Cut cut cut etc

So you would prefer the tax and spend left?

nosebleed

1st December 2011, 07:14

when there is an oops in your post some bastard is bound to point it out.
The million people that chose not to vote was the highest since ... The voter turnout was the lowest, that is the number of people who chose to vote was at it lowest. I blame the demise of Mcgullgady Serious and Bill and Ben Party for the lack of turn out as these parties at least gave people a reason to vote even if they didn't like the 'real' politicians. Or perhaps it was the silly advertising rules where by your local radio station couldn't link the voting to its weather report and therefore remind people to vote.

Aint that the truth...

I think you were referring to: The McGillicuddy Serious Party

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 07:18

Aint that the truth...

I think you were referring to: The McGillicuddy Serious Party

yep an oops for an oops.

mashman

1st December 2011, 07:28

Yes some times it seems there are two choices.

Would you like to be sodomised by John or by Phil ?

Those who don't like Phil and choose John, allow John to claim consent.

Those who don't want to be sodomised by anyone and choose neither are then told they have no right to complain !.

Not voting for something you hate is as valid a choice as any other.

In my naivety, I figured that NZ may well have been different. I'd had a guts full of it in the UK. Thought we'd try somewhere differen... somewhere has to have gotten it right?

5 years on and I see the same shit, Red v Blue... just on a lightly smaller scale and with a more restrained media.

As far as I can remember voters have had 2 main choices, the Red v the Blues. And in the 23 years I've been allowed to vote, I've yet to see any political party try and unite a country through its policies. Granted you can please all of the people all of the time, but FFS it'd be nice if they made an effort. That effort going along similar lines as:

hey Reds, what do you think of our Blue policy...
Ooooh it's rad, but if you add this and do that, it could be slightly better...
You're right, let's do it...
Hi, Greens here, if you changed that to be similar, you could have x benefit...
Fuck yeah, now we're talkin.

Some want to save the land, some want to rape it for money... no contest for me, I'm here for the blink of an eye and have generations to come after me. Wont someone think of the children.

As I said, I'm naive... at least I think it's me that's be naive.

Indiana_Jones

1st December 2011, 07:34

I've yet to see any political party try and unite a country through its policies. Granted you can please all of the people all of the time, but FFS it'd be nice if they made an effort.

+1

It would be nice if they actually gave a fuck about the country, they only seem to care about getting their fat snout into the public trough.

-Indy

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 07:43

Granted you can please all of the people all of the time,

You can? Well done. You should rule.
:jerry:

mashman

1st December 2011, 07:57

It would be nice if they actually gave a fuck about the country, they only seem to care about getting their fat snout into the public trough.

I wish it were that simple. Perhaps the next election should be political parties up before KB'ers, the whole party, and be ready to answer questions... hell we'll give them a chance to phone a friend, which they seem to be doing an awful lot of. That's the bit that gets me, seeking advice, finding out what they're allowed to get away with now that they have the peoples' mandate. They're supposed to be the ones coming up with the ideas, isn't that why we put them there? well you put them there.

You can? Well done. You should rule.
:jerry:

Fecksake you're on a roll this mornin Mr Corrections Nazi

Spearfish

1st December 2011, 08:12

Sew hoo one tha election?

Eye mis Helen...

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 08:14

Fecksake you're on a roll this mornin Mr Corrections Nazi

Yes but it is the pot calling the kettle black. Not often I spot the mistakes as I am usually the one making them.

I wish it were that simple. Perhaps the next election should be political parties up before KB'ers, the whole party, and be ready to answer questions... hell we'll give them a chance to phone a friend, which they seem to be doing an awful lot of. That's the bit that gets me, seeking advice, finding out what they're allowed to get away with now that they have the peoples' mandate. They're supposed to be the ones coming up with the ideas, isn't that why we put them there? well you put them there

Getting back on topic. IMO you have hit on the secret here "we'll give them a chance to phone a friend, which they seem to be doing an awful lot of". Who "we" decide would be best to run the country don't really get the power to do it, they get manipulated by their "friends" (leave the r out and the word would be more correct). The election is only one step in the process, protest, referendums, partitions are all examples of the additional steps. If you look you can see how all these steps that like the people have a say in how the country is governed are always being attacked and the attempts to weaken them however they are still affective. The problem the power players have is that if they weaken the peoples power too much they end up strengthening it as when protest no longer works or gets too risky you get revolution and at this point I am in danger of stepping into the Occupy thread. :shutup:

mashman

1st December 2011, 08:24

Yes but it is the pot calling the kettle black.

mmmmmmmyes.

Getting back on topic. IMO you have hit on the secret here "we'll give them a chance to phone a friend, which they seem to be doing an awful lot of". Who "we" decide would be best to run the country don't really get the power to do it, they get manipulated by their "friends" (leave the r out and the word would be more correct). The election is only one step in the process, protest, referendums, partitions are all examples of the additional steps. If you look you can see how all these steps that like the people have a say in how the country is governed are always being attacked and the attempts to weaken them however they are still affective. The problem the power players have is that if they weaken the peoples power too much they end up strengthening it as when protest no longer works or gets too risky you get revolution and at this point I am in danger of stepping into the Occupy thread. :shutup:

Nope, that's a conspiracy theory, you'll burn for that... and if you're gonna keep rightin like that I might have to step into the BDOTGNZA thread proper like. As for the power players. I'm hoping that's gonna be the case as I can't see any other way forwards. I'd rather revolution didn't happen, not a physical one anyway, but it would seem that we all know that they're sliding their appendages in oor poop shoot, yet are happy to allow them to do it (whoever "they" are)... and yet they claim to be the intelligent ones. I find it quite comical these days.

slowpoke

1st December 2011, 08:38

Who's mining what ? And what do NZers get out of this mining ? 200 jobs was it, cool ! That'll help much !

Not quite that simple, Bill. Most of the profits will go overseas but the gubbermint claims royalties from whatever is recovered and millions upon millions goes into the economy via setting up and servicing the operation. The operation may only directly employ 200 people but someone has to supply the tucker, the consumables, the transport, the machines, the housing, the IT, the clothing, the safety gear, the cleaning, blah de blah blah and all that dosh gets spread around. The nett benefit is a helluva lot more than just 200 jobs.

Some want to save the land, some want to rape it for money... no contest for me, I'm here for the blink of an eye and have generations to come after me. Wont someone think of the children.

Why does it have to be one or t'other? Why can't we lead the world in clean green mining and sell the tech overseas? The smart thing to do would be to set stringent criteria and let the resource companies investigate ways to meet the criteria, then start talking brass tacks. But no, we just knee jerk a response and delete the option without even investigating it. Most people know fuck all about any form of resource recovery yet have already formed an opinion. Thinking of their children? I hope the kids are happy with 14/hr in 2025.

mashman

1st December 2011, 08:51

Not quite that simple, Bill. Most of the profits will go overseas but the gubbermint claims royalties from whatever is recovered and millions upon millions goes into the economy via setting up and servicing the operation. The operation may only directly employ 200 people but someone has to supply the tucker, the consumables, the transport, the machines, the housing, the IT, the clothing, the safety gear, the cleaning, blah de blah blah and all that dosh gets spread around. The nett benefit is a helluva lot more than just 200 jobs.

... and the money that's brought in goes straight out again via us buying stuff :laugh:... sorry, just had to. It's only ever a short term gain (5 - 10 years) imho. Why can't NZ have it all?

Why does it have to be one or t'other? Why can't we lead the world in clean green mining and sell the tech overseas? The smart thing to do would be to set stringent criteria and let the resource companies investigate ways to meet the criteria, then start talking brass tacks. But no, we just knee jerk a response and delete the option without even investigating it. Most people know fuck all about any form of resource recovery yet have already formed an opinion. Thinking of their children? I hope the kids are happy with 14/hr in 2025.

Very true, there are alternatives... but you highlight there's a knee jerk response. That knee jerk response has 1 main factor that stop us from researching, designing and building the tech to accomplish the clean green way. budget constaint. I won't say lack of investment, because researching etc... is just too fackin expensive and won't return enough quickly enough, unless you sell shitloads of the new tech very quickly. Something I can't see happening in such an established industry... although I could be wrong.

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 09:10

I wasn't opting out in my eyes. I was making a choice. I voted... albeit by not ticking the piece of paper. As has been mentioned elsewhere, if there was the option of "Noone" on the piece of paper, I'd go to the polling booth and tick it. There isn't, so I don't, but I have still voted.

There is. You go to the Polling Station, collect your Voting Form and walk straight to the ballot box without putting any ticks on it.

Headbanger

1st December 2011, 09:16

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 09:21

Well it's not really is it. Everyone is subject to 'everything that goes with it' whether they vote or not.

Everyone is affected by the outcome of the election. By not voting people are saying they have no interest in deciding what that outcome is and whatever happens is ok by them.

I would have agreed with you until this year. I'm quite interested in politics, actually care about what the pollies are saying/doing, and realise politics are more important than the sports score on the weekend (although I'm interested in that too) as politics actually have some bearing on our lives.

But, this year not voting did not mean I "agree with the outcome", it meant I couldn't see any acceptable outcome. There were major flaws with both parties policies that I simply could not stomach. Labour punish those who work hard and/or smart and many would argue they reward the opposite, and selling off State assets is a complete anathema to me. I refuse to endorse either strategy.

So what were the options: the Greens who's policies are well intentioned but economically unsustainable if we want to maintain any standard of living, those with narrow agenda's and even less ideas, or the just plain loopy..

So I voted for the Abstention Party. I'm not proud of it, but I'd be outright ashamed if I'd endorsed what was on offer this year, and Key, Goff and co should be similarly ashamed that they've alienated so many of the voting public.

The way to register that there aren't any acceptable candidates/parties for you to vote for is to collect your voting form and stick it in the box without ticking any of the boxes. That way it shows up in the stats and is a far more effective way of saying all of these bastards suck so I'm not voting for any of them than by not voting at all. People not voting at all have many reasons for doing so, but there's no way to know if it's apathy, can't decide or whatever. A ballot paper with no ticks on it means you're not apathetic but there wasn't anyone you wanted to vote for.

How can you say not participating in something means you agree with it? That doesn't make sense.

Short of forming their own political party, a lot of people feel there are no candidates they would consider lending their weight to.

A million people chose not to vote, lowest since the 1880s. This should be a massive wakeup call.

See above.

Headbanger

1st December 2011, 09:40

Everyone is affected by the outcome of the election. By not voting people are saying they have no interest in deciding what that outcome is and whatever happens is ok by them.

.

You don't get to define the intentions or motivations of the actions of others, what you have expressed is an opinion.

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 09:45

You don't get to define the intentions or motivations of the actions of others, what you have expressed is an opinion.

Isn't that what an election is? A poll of people's opinions?
I liked what Mental suggested in that it shows you made an effort to express your opinion even though your opinion was that there was no one to vote for.
You could try a write on vote, don't tick the boxes, just scribble "none of this lot" across the paper or some other message that indicates why you chose not to tick the box

mashman

1st December 2011, 09:49

There is. You go to the Polling Station, collect your Voting Form and walk straight to the ballot box without putting any ticks on it.

I did it virtually :) and saved on paper resources.

Headbanger

1st December 2011, 09:49

I find the notion that you have to show your contempt for the system by participating in the system to be slightly retarded.

How about we just burn down the polling station?

At the end of the day we are all free to show our intentions through whatever actions we decide upon, and we don't loose any right to be dissatisfied just because some other twat insists we do it they way they do it....

Swoop

1st December 2011, 09:54

... and Key, Goff and co should be similarly ashamed that they've alienated so many of the voting public.
It looks likke Mr Key did not alienate his voters. Labour, on the other hand, did.
The tired arses who did not bother to vote are not entitled to whine.

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 09:57

It looks likke Mr Key did not alienate his voters. Labour, on the other hand, did.
The tired arses who did not bother to vote are not entitled to whine.

Both Nats and Labs stayed away. More a case of some ill chosen words by smiley and some good mileage from Winny got the tired old arses out of their arm chairs to give him over 6%

shrub

1st December 2011, 09:58

I think we are seeing the beginning of National's true agenda. I was always puzzled by the fact that after 9 years in opposition they did so little in their first term despite being extremely popular. Initially I thought it was because they lacked the ability to think of anything and the guts to make any hard decisions, but now I concede that I was probably wrong and that they have been extremely clever and operating tactically. They did nothing much and offended almost nobody, so they weren't voted against. They were also incredibly popular and so certain of getting back that a lot of people who may have supported Labour didn't bother to vote. Banks is a puppet and Dunne has always done what he is told, so they have pretty much total control - in effect we now have a dictatorship.

I was talking to a friend last night who is in the system and privy to more than us, and he reckons that the last 3 years were a softening up process - we had the partial asset sales fed to us, and we didn't like it but accepted it, Brownlee suggested mining conservation land, and while National backed down, the seeds had been sown. But the biggest and most significant strategy was the (planned) growth of government debt to record levels. We are potentially deeply in the shit, and while National claim they will balance the books by 2014, that claim is based on economic growth. Given what is happening in Europe and the USA I just can't see our economy growing at the rate needed, if at all.

So that's a problem. We're going broke fast, so what do we do? I believe over the next few months John and Bill will stand before us with serious expressions and explain that "the global economic crisis means tough decisions need to be made", and more assets will be sold (including ACC and Kiwibank). Overseas companies will be given greater access to our resources and given greater freedom to open up here (the newspeak term is "invest in the NZ economy").

Don't blame me, I voted Green.

Headbanger

1st December 2011, 10:16

But the biggest and most significant strategy was the (planned) growth of government debt to record levels. .

You mean to say that they were in cahoots with labour during their last term in office when they gave away 11 billion dollars the country didn't have?

so that we...

and so that they...

And that Nationals efforts to reduce expenditure since that time has been a....

Wait, none of this even pretends to make sense.

next.

steve_t

1st December 2011, 10:25

oneofsix

1st December 2011, 10:36

Interesting that best seller author and journalist Nicky Hager suggests that the million or so people who couldn't be bothered voting was a direct result of National's crafty mind control techniques. So yeah, davereid, you may actually have been a pawn in National's political strategy :shutup:

"I believe, after my years studying the National Party and Republican party-style politics during research for my book The Hollow Men, that party strategists (and particularly right-wing party strategists) have been perfecting the arts not only of winning votes, but of discouraging groups of opposition-leaning voters from voting at all. This is may be an effective tactic (including leading people to feel cynical about politicians and politics so that they opt out), but it is immensely dangerous for a democratic country." Nicky Hager.
'PS. Don't forget to buy my book...' :innocent:

So what Nicky is suggesting is if all those that failed to vote had instead chosen a mini party to vote for, someone down around ACT or United Futures share of the vote, then they would have upset the major players. What a lot of people don't seem to get is that your party doesn't have to get in for your vote to have had an influence. The people knocking at the door worry the major players more than those in the house. Once they are in the house the threat is known and dealt with.

DrunkenMistake

1st December 2011, 10:46

thanks to the 48% that voted National we are now screwed. Now they have total power they don't have ask or consulate they just do it. Proof http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769949 Mark my words this is just the start!!!! Sayer of doom Richard
Let me dial you a waaaaambalance.

Meh, we'd be screwed regardless who 'won' the election.

Unless it was Bubbles the Chimp....
I thought you got locked up for making bubbles from that chimp?..

Everyone is affected by the outcome of the election. By not voting people are saying they have no interest in deciding what that outcome is and whatever happens is ok by them.

+1 I didnt vote, and I dont care if I did or didnt, If I was going to vote I would have voted national, it was clear they had this in the bag regardless, they done well in the last term considering they came in at the recession and to come in and sort out labours shit, any actions or decisions dont actually show any affect until about 3 - 4 years on by which point its the next term and if there is a new government then they have to clean that mess up while Joe Bog has his head so far up his ass to see that they are having to fix it, he assumes it is the current governments fault and problem.

You don't get to define the intentions or motivations of the actions of others, what you have expressed is an opinion.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"

avgas

1st December 2011, 10:50

It looks likke Mr Key did not alienate his voters. Labour, on the other hand, did.
The tired arses who did not bother to vote are not entitled to whine.
Actually he did.
2008 1,053,398
2011 957,769

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2008
http://www.elections.org.nz/study/news/preliminary-results-for-the-2011-general-election-and-advance-voting-for-the-referendum-on-the-voting-system.html

Could be due to people not caring about the system anymore

Voter turnout for the 2011 General Election is estimated to be 73.83% of those enrolled as at 5pm Friday 25 November. This compares with a final 79.46% turnout of those enrolled in 2008.

Perhaps its time to change it. Or wait until we suffer the same fate as the rest of Europe.

avgas

1st December 2011, 10:51

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 10:54

You don't get to define the intentions or motivations of the actions of others, what you have expressed is an opinion.

Whatever their intentions are, nobody else knows because they haven't expressed it. I'm not voting for any of those fuckwits is indistinguishable from meh. Besides, the outcome affects everyone whether they vote or not. Taking no part in determining the outcome states that you don't care what the outcome is and because everyone is affected by it, that outcome is ok. If it's not ok there's only one way to show it and that's by voting, or turning in a blank voting paper.

avgas

1st December 2011, 10:56

Everyone is affected by the outcome of the election. By not voting people are saying they have no interest in deciding what that outcome is and whatever happens is ok by them.
Oh no my dear chap doesn't mean that at all.
Unfortunately we may not find out if people are "ok" or not until they do actually do something.

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

Could be situations where people though "people are saying they have no interest in deciding what that outcome is and whatever happens is ok by them."

nek minit murders

shrub

1st December 2011, 11:00

You mean to say that they were in cahoots with labour during their last term in office when they gave away 11 billion dollars the country didn't have?

so that we...

and so that they...

And that Nationals efforts to reduce expenditure since that time has been a....

Wait, none of this even pretends to make sense.

next.

No, it wouldn't, but that's because you are trying to understand things without reference to the facts. From the RBNZ statistics (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/extfin/e3/download.html):

Official government debt June 2000: $17.38 bn or 15.4% of GDP
Official government debt June 2005: $16,24 bn or 10.5% of GDP
Official government debt June 2008: $17.85 bn or 9.7% of GDP
Official government debt June 2011: $40.80 bn or 20.4% of GDP

If you look closely you will see that during Labours final term the amount of government debt did rise by around $1.6bn, not quite $11bn. Then if you look at the last 3 years it rose around $23bn!

Of course you may want different data, so I suggest you start with looking at the a summary of the 2008 Treasury Financial Statements of the Government. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun08/07.htm#_tocCash_Position), then look at a snapshot of the 2011 data (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun11snapshot/01.htm).

You'll see that education expenses rose slightly in 09, then basically stayed the same, while health and social welfare spending crept up. You'll also see that selling shit like electricity and airfares generated $15.1 bn, more than twice as much as the tax paid by the corporate sector, who paid less than 1/3 as much tax as private individuals. Interesting, huh?

Or would you prefer a National Party press release, or a right wing blog somewhere? They may not be factually correct, but they support your argument, and that's a good thing.

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 11:03

Oh no my dear chap doesn't mean that at all.
Unfortunately we may not find out if people are "ok" or not until they do actually do something.

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

Could be situations where people though "people are saying they have no interest in deciding what that outcome is and whatever happens is ok by them."

nek minit murders

Not voting is taken as meaning those people agree with whatever the outcome is because they didn't try to change it. What their actual intentions were is unknown and because they didn't make the effort many people ignore them.

steve_t

1st December 2011, 11:17

No, it wouldn't, but that's because you are trying to understand things without reference to the facts. From the RBNZ statistics (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/extfin/e3/download.html):

Official government debt June 2000: $17.38 bn or 15.4% of GDP
Official government debt June 2005: $16,24 bn or 10.5% of GDP
Official government debt June 2008: $17.85 bn or 9.7% of GDP
Official government debt June 2011: $40.80 bn or 20.4% of GDP

If you look closely you will see that during Labours final term the amount of government debt did rise by around $1.6bn, not quite $11bn. Then if you look at the last 3 years it rose around $23bn!

Of course you may want different data, so I suggest you start with looking at the a summary of the 2008 Treasury Financial Statements of the Government. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun08/07.htm#_tocCash_Position), then look at a snapshot of the 2011 data (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun11snapshot/01.htm).

You'll see that education expenses rose slightly in 09, then basically stayed the same, while health and social welfare spending crept up. You'll also see that selling shit like electricity and airfares generated $15.1 bn, more than twice as much as the tax paid by the corporate sector, who paid less than 1/3 as much tax as private individuals. Interesting, huh?

Or would you prefer a National Party press release, or a right wing blog somewhere? They may not be factually correct, but they support your argument, and that's a good thing.

Wasn't Labour's plan, if they got in, to borrow another $17 billion?

shrub

1st December 2011, 11:21

Wasn't Labour's plan, if they got in, to borrow another $17 billion?

Yep, but borrowing money isn't always a bad thing if there is a strategy to repay that debt and if the money is used productively. Having said that, while overall I think Labour's economic policies were better than Nationals, they still had massive flaws.

I'd be interested to see how much further in debt we are in 2014, and to compare our net worth then. I suspect it won't be a pretty picture.

Swoop

1st December 2011, 11:23

Looking at the percentage of blue in the house, voters certainly turned out to support one party.

Perhaps its time to change it. Or wait until we suffer the same fate as the rest of Europe.
It sadly appears that the sheeple want to keep our Micky Mouse Politics system.
Oh well, back to seeing more one-man parties appearing when another person departs a larger one.

mashman

1st December 2011, 11:24

Not voting is taken as meaning those people agree with whatever the outcome is because they didn't try to change it. What their actual intentions were is unknown and because they didn't make the effort many people ignore them.

So when they fess up as to why they didn't vote, it is acceptable to invalidate that reason because they are to be ignored by default. Bit silly really (he said politely)

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 11:28

So when they fess up as to why they didn't vote, it is acceptable to invalidate that reason because they are to be ignored by default. Bit silly really (he said politely)

Nope. Means nothing because they don't have the conviction to back it by voting.

steve_t

1st December 2011, 11:34

Yep, but borrowing money isn't always a bad thing if there is a strategy to repay that debt and if the money is used productively. Having said that, while overall I think Labour's economic policies were better than Nationals, they still had massive flaws.

I'd be interested to see how much further in debt we are in 2014, and to compare our net worth then. I suspect it won't be a pretty picture.

A girl said to me before the elections "I'm not going to vote because I don't like the thought of asset sales but I also don't like the thought of increased borrowing." :corn: A friend of her's then said "Why can't we just print more money?" :shutup:

Murray

1st December 2011, 11:38

The funniest thing I heard all election was a guy at the pub proclaiming all the virtues of Labour! When asked how he felt as a working tax payer paying for increasing benefits and beneficeries his reply was "todays beneficeries are raising the next generation of New Zealand taxpayers"

Most people fell off there stools laughing

Scuba_Steve

1st December 2011, 11:43

A girl said to me before the elections "I'm not going to vote because I don't like the thought of asset sales but I also don't like the thought of increased borrowing."

Well that's still the biggest problem we have in NZ. There are more than 2 parties in NZ running for Govt!!!, We are not America! ...and lets hope we never are.

mashman

1st December 2011, 11:43

Nope. Means nothing because they don't have the conviction to back it by voting.

ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... but I did vote, just not in the way you decide counts as a valid vote.

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 11:45

The funniest thing I heard all election was a guy at the pub proclaiming all the virtues of Labour! When asked how he felt as a tax paying paying for increasing benefits and beneficeries his reply was "todays beneficeries are raising the next generation of New Zealand taxpayers"

Most people fell off there stools laughing

I would've cried. While everyone should vote you sometimes get to see the inherent flaws in the Democratic system :facepalm:

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 11:53

ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... but I did vote, just not in the way you decide counts as a valid vote.

So why didn't you just turn in an empty voting paper?? Means a hell of a lot more and actually has an affect. Not voting at all states nothing.

If it's a private statement then ok. But then don't expect others to take you seriously. Who is going to listen to someone who doesn't back their own beliefs by putting it on paper??

DrunkenMistake

1st December 2011, 11:54

If you look closely you will see that during Labours final term the amount of government debt did rise by around $1.6bn, not quite $11bn. Then if you look at the last 3 years it rose around $23bn!

The last 3 years we have been in a recession and had to borrow to get ourselves out of it, how about dem aleims? :facepalm:

mashman

1st December 2011, 12:04

So why didn't you just turn in an empty voting paper?? Means a hell of a lot more and actually has an affect. Not voting at all states nothing.

If it's a private statement then ok. But then don't expect others to take you seriously. Who is going to listen to someone who doesn't back their own beliefs by putting it on paper??

To be honest I'd never considered plonking an empty paper in the box, ha. You may well have me putting my first piece of voting paper into a box next time around... although I'd prefer to tick a box that specified my non vote vote. Not voting speaks volumes to others, perhaps your definition need an update.

Obviously I'm really really worried and concerned that I'm not taken seriously. Technically putting an unticked piece of paper into a ballot box isn't putting it on paper, as nothing has been put on the paper by me declaring my vote. fuck it, I take it back, I won't stick the paper in the box, you've talked me back out of it again :shifty:

shrub

1st December 2011, 12:13

The last 3 years we have been in a recession and had to borrow to get ourselves out of it, how about dem aleims? :facepalm:

yeah, that's been a great excuse, but I'm curious as to exactly what National did to get us out of said recession. I've had a good long think about it, and apart from laying off public servants and giving a tax cut to high income earners they haven't really implemented any strategies. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the cycle way and the 9 day fortnight. And of course the home insulation scheme created a lot of work and will result in significant long term savings in energy use and health costs. That was just about their best achievement - pity it wasn't actually their idea.

avgas

1st December 2011, 12:44

Not voting is taken as meaning those people agree with whatever the outcome is because they didn't try to change it. What their actual intentions were is unknown and because they didn't make the effort many people ignore them.
Change it to what? State what they could have changed it to?

At best all they could have done was get labour in instead of National. Perhaps it was a case they agree with neither?
You might benefit asking "why" rather that stating what you clearly do not understand.

As mentioned earlier - people have voted in governments while others did not (vote). If history tells us anything, eventually it gets to a point where these people (that did not vote) make their intentions very clear.
Unfortunately innocent people usually die after.

If I gave you a choice between a red rope or a blue rope, to hang yourself with. Which would you choose?

avgas

1st December 2011, 12:46

So why didn't you just turn in an empty voting paper?? Means a hell of a lot more and actually has an affect. Not voting at all states nothing.
People have.
It counts as the same thing. So apart from making someone feel better achieves nothing.

The only way people have broken out of these systems is usually blood in the streets.
Democracy can be more than putting a bit of paper in a box. Unfortunately.

BoristheBiter

1st December 2011, 13:05

SPman

1st December 2011, 13:35

If I gave you a choice between a red rope or a blue rope, to hang yourself with. Which would you choose? Blue - to match my blood!

avgas

1st December 2011, 13:46

Blue - to match my blood!
Great decision sir.

However votes are now in, with National (the party you voted for) now in charge they have changed what you receive.
Please see attached you cute blue bear in return.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EnloZJmjqGQ/Tmi6Gk2BufI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/huzq54h_GwE/s1600/water+raah.jpg

superman

1st December 2011, 13:58

:facepalm:

How about a gracious... ok yes National have power because they got more votes.

Woopdishit, Centre-Left/Right parties are pretty much the same, the most contentious issue being the sale of 3% of our state assets. :brick:

HARDLY THE END OF THE WORLD.

Edbear

1st December 2011, 14:02

imdying

1st December 2011, 14:07

if there was the option of "Noone" on the piece of paper, I'd go to the polling booth and tick it. There isn't, so I don't, but I have still voted.You can make your vote informal, all of those are counted. We have a long list of informal vote types, including 'NO SUITABLE CANDIDATE', although I've seen some good pictures drawn too :D

So it would appear that you've twisted the truth. For the record, did you cast a ballot, informal or otherwise?

Fast Eddie

1st December 2011, 14:41

I drew a cock on my vote but I think it just counted as a vote for John Key

Ocean1

1st December 2011, 14:47

You'll also see that selling shit like electricity and airfares generated $15.1 bn, more than twice as much as the tax paid by the corporate sector, who paid less than 1/3 as much tax as private individuals. Interesting, huh?

Fascinating.

What percentage of their respective incomes did the corperate and private individual pay in tax?

shrub

1st December 2011, 14:50

To be honest I'd never considered plonking an empty paper in the box, ha. You may well have me putting my first piece of voting paper into a box next time around... although I'd prefer to tick a box that specified my non vote vote. Not voting speaks volumes to others, perhaps your definition need an update.

Obviously I'm really really worried and concerned that I'm not taken seriously. Technically putting an unticked piece of paper into a ballot box isn't putting it on paper, as nothing has been put on the paper by me declaring my vote. fuck it, I take it back, I won't stick the paper in the box, you've talked me back out of it again :shifty:

Not voting is essentially an anarchistic act because you are deliberately rejecting all forms of social control available. It could be seen as a very passive demonstration of anarchy in that you aren't actually doing anything, or if an active decision it's the most extreme because you are intentionally rejecting not just the political parties but the very democratic system itself.

But not voting is in most cases a cop out because there is no perfect party: there never has been and there never will be. I think it also demonstrates intellectual laziness because the person concerned hasn't bothered evaluating every political party to find the one that is the best fit. Even in a MMP environment most people still think in terms of National and Labour, and left and right. One of the characteristics of most modern representative democracies is that the left and right continuum is very fuzzy and parties ideological positions change constantly.

I voted Green because they while I didn't like of their policies, there were none that I was really unhappy about whereas I couldn't say the same about any other party, and in fact Act, National and to a lesser extent Labour all had policies that I rejected outright. And while all the parties had some good ideas, I think the Greens had more of the best ideas than their competitors and accepted most of the other parties better ideas (e.g. capital gain tax). Right now New Zealand needs new ideas and fresh thinking more than ever in our history, but sadly the only parties weaker than National in that area are Act and NZ Future. Our government.

shrub

1st December 2011, 15:08

Fascinating.

What percentage of their respective incomes did the corperate and private individual pay in tax?

The personal rate is 10.5 to 33%. The top personal is lower than the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Sweden and Germany. It's also higher than Palestine, Iceland, Jamaica, Mexico and Kazakhstan, so we need to follow their lead.

Corporate tax rate is 28% and it's lower than Australia, Germany and Japan but it's higher than Sweden, South Korea. Personally I think the corporate tax rate is about right and the personal is a bit low, and that's a big reason why the government struggles to balance it's books. The only problem is we have been fed the doctrine that the only way to grow is to cut tax and that we are paying too much tax for decades now so common sense will never prevail and we will always have governments that go broke in order for you and I to have enough money to buy more shit that we don't need. I know a lot of people look for tax cuts to improve their circumstances, but personally I prefer to either cut my cloth or lift my income by making myself more valuable and productive.

avgas

1st December 2011, 15:17

I think it also demonstrates intellectual laziness because the person concerned hasn't bothered evaluating every political party to find the one that is the best fit.
On some accounts I would have to agree with you. Lazy people don't vote. For the very simple reason that they don't do much at all.

But as for voting for "best fit". Red rope, Blue rope or soft, padded green rope? They can give you just the right length if you wish. You hang anyway.
So isn't voting for "best fit" also a cop out?
Its kinda like playing a game you know your going to lose. What was the definition of crazy again?

So not voting is not ALWAYS intellectual laziness. Sometimes its a case of knowing the options, where you choose to walk away.
Many people have left NZ for much simpler reasons.

avgas

1st December 2011, 15:20

You can make your vote informal, all of those are counted. We have a long list of informal vote types, including 'NO SUITABLE CANDIDATE', although I've seen some good pictures drawn too :D

So it would appear that you've twisted the truth. For the record, did you cast a ballot, informal or otherwise?
Interesting. So without sounding like a complete simpleton........what is stopping them putting "other" on the form?
Apart from the obvious of giving people the choice.

shrub

1st December 2011, 15:20

On some accounts I would have to agree with you. Lazy people don't vote. For the very simple reason that they don't do much at all.

But as for voting for "best fit". Red rope, Blue rope or soft, padded green rope? They can give you just the right length if you wish. You hang anyway.
So isn't voting for "best fit" also a cop out?
Its kinda like playing a game you know your going to lose. What was the definition of crazy again?

So not voting is not ALWAYS intellectual laziness. Sometimes its a case of knowing the options, where you choose to walk away.
Many people have left NZ for much simpler reasons.

Not all options are rope, and in fact some are the opposite of rope.

mashman

1st December 2011, 15:20

I'm going change my name to "none of the above"
and start a party called "tick this box".

cunning, very cunning.

You can make your vote informal, all of those are counted. We have a long list of informal vote types, including 'NO SUITABLE CANDIDATE', although I've seen some good pictures drawn too

So it would appear that you've twisted the truth. For the record, did you cast a ballot, informal or otherwise?

heh. I'll consider that for next time, although I'd prefer a single box at the bottom of the paper listing "No Confidence".

For the record. I cast my ballot otherwise, I enrolled to vote and became part of the non-voter turnout stats.

imdying

1st December 2011, 15:42

Interesting. So without sounding like a complete simpleton........what is stopping them putting "other" on the form?
Apart from the obvious of giving people the choice.People are cattle. The idea is to get them to pick a party. Give them only parties to choose from, and that's what you'll get. Apart from those that already actively want to vote informal.

Another way to look at it is that it'll show up the big holes in democracy.

Democracy doesn't work. Just like over populating the planet. I expect the masses will catch up with reality some time. I'm interested to see what usurps it.

steve_t

1st December 2011, 15:52

I voted Green because they while I didn't like of their policies, there were none that I was really unhappy about whereas I couldn't say the same about any other party, and in fact Act, National and to a lesser extent Labour all had policies that I rejected outright.

LOL. I had quite a few people say that to me - "I voted Green because I didn't want to vote for either Labour or National."

Me: "So, it wasn't because you liked their policies?"

Them: "I don't know what policies the Greens have but I don't want to sell our assets and I don't want to borrow any more money!"

:bash:

mashman

1st December 2011, 16:12

Not voting is essentially an anarchistic act because you are deliberately rejecting all forms of social control available. It could be seen as a very passive demonstration of anarchy in that you aren't actually doing anything, or if an active decision it's the most extreme because you are intentionally rejecting not just the political parties but the very democratic system itself.

But not voting is in most cases a cop out because there is no perfect party: there never has been and there never will be. I think it also demonstrates intellectual laziness because the person concerned hasn't bothered evaluating every political party to find the one that is the best fit. Even in a MMP environment most people still think in terms of National and Labour, and left and right. One of the characteristics of most modern representative democracies is that the left and right continuum is very fuzzy and parties ideological positions change constantly.

I voted Green because they while I didn't like of their policies, there were none that I was really unhappy about whereas I couldn't say the same about any other party, and in fact Act, National and to a lesser extent Labour all had policies that I rejected outright. And while all the parties had some good ideas, I think the Greens had more of the best ideas than their competitors and accepted most of the other parties better ideas (e.g. capital gain tax). Right now New Zealand needs new ideas and fresh thinking more than ever in our history, but sadly the only parties weaker than National in that area are Act and NZ Future. Our government.

Interesting. It would seem that the highlighted above would be the best fit description of why I voted the way I did. Although I was rejecting policy, the policital parties just happen to endorse those policies. Are we still living in a democracy? I do not believe that we are and on reflection have my misgivings as to wether we ever truly have. Perhaps I'm overly principled in that respect, where there is no perfect party, I can't? won't? vote for any party just because I have the right to. As mentioned in another thread, DSC was probably at the top of my small list (Top being DSC and Greens, with Nats and Labs very much at the bottom), DSC being the closest to what I hold dear for society, but their economic policy still has a fundamental flaw in my eyes, heh. Don't get me wrong, I was disillusioned at an early age and went through the can't be arsed phase under the guise that nothing had changed and never was likely too, dismissing politics entirely.

I realise that it takes a parliament to run a country, not just the govt of the day, each party supposedly helping the other out in the areas where they may lack policy/knowledge etc... naive or what and probably THE major factor of why I reserve my right not to cast my vote, or at least 50 - 50 political system v policy. Parliament is not the place to be backscratching imho and I'm now done with the pretence of the financial system to boot. If they start offering online policy refernda (referendums?) then I'll be in like flynn... but I doubt I'll ever endorse any party in good conscience.

Edbear

1st December 2011, 16:52

People are cattle. The idea is to get them to pick a party. Give them only parties to choose from, and that's what you'll get. Apart from those that already actively want to vote informal.

Another way to look at it is that it'll show up the big holes in democracy.

Democracy doesn't work. Just like over populating the planet. I expect the masses will catch up with reality some time. I'm interested to see what usurps it.

I wonder if you realise how profound that statement is..?

Mental Trousers

1st December 2011, 16:54

Change it to what? State what they could have changed it to?

At best all they could have done was get labour in instead of National. Perhaps it was a case they agree with neither?
You might benefit asking "why" rather that stating what you clearly do not understand.

As mentioned earlier - people have voted in governments while others did not (vote). If history tells us anything, eventually it gets to a point where these people (that did not vote) make their intentions very clear.
Unfortunately innocent people usually die after.

If I gave you a choice between a red rope or a blue rope, to hang yourself with. Which would you choose?

What to change to is not what I'm talking about. But lots of people submitting an empty ballot paper says a hell of a lot more than being stuck with in with the apathetic lot.

People have.
It counts as the same thing. So apart from making someone feel better achieves nothing.

No way. Lots of people putting in empty ballot papers has influence. It shows the Politicians and Parties that there's a significant number of people who aren't catered for, so then they have to find out why.

People who don't vote couldn't be arsed getting out of bed.

imdying

1st December 2011, 17:20

I wonder if you realise how profound that statement is..?I don't think it's quite right. Maybe it should be more like, "Once the average standard of living gets to a certain level, democracy no longer works"?

That's based on the assumption that the rising rate of apathy is attributable to an excess of happy campers (or fat sheep if you prefer) rather a population that simply doesn't expect their vote to make a difference? Not that it matters I guess, the nett result is the same.

Robert Taylor

1st December 2011, 17:59

Ocean1

1st December 2011, 20:50

...The personal rate is 10.5 to 33%. <snip> Corporate tax rate is 28% ...

So the reason for this:

...the corporate sector, who paid less than 1/3 as much tax as private individuals.

Is that the corporate sector, (otherwise “business”) earned a lot less than private individuals, and in fact they paid substantially more tax per dollar earned than did those private individuals.

But hey, I’m sure they’d be happy to pay more. Perhaps they could reduce wages and salaries, that way they’d be able to pay that 28% corporate rate on income that currently contributes only about 20%.

SPman

1st December 2011, 22:06

However votes are now in, with National (the party you voted for)cough.....splutter........choke!
How dare you sirrah!

slowpoke

1st December 2011, 23:39

The personal rate is 10.5 to 33%. The top personal is lower than the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Sweden and Germany. It's also higher than Palestine, Iceland, Jamaica, Mexico and Kazakhstan, so we need to follow their lead.

Corporate tax rate is 28% and it's lower than Australia, Germany and Japan but it's higher than Sweden, South Korea. Personally I think the corporate tax rate is about right and the personal is a bit low, and that's a big reason why the government struggles to balance it's books. The only problem is we have been fed the doctrine that the only way to grow is to cut tax and that we are paying too much tax for decades now so common sense will never prevail and we will always have governments that go broke in order for you and I to have enough money to buy more shit that we don't need. I know a lot of people look for tax cuts to improve their circumstances, but personally I prefer to either cut my cloth or lift my income by making myself more valuable and productive.

Actual tax rates only tell half the story, where's the info on tax threshold's, average earnings, GST rates, etc?

Cut your cloth however you like but you won't bridge the gap to the 20-30% higher average earnings they make in Oz. Fact is our wages are shameful, regardless of taxation, and no matter how "valuable and productive" you make yourself (there's a doctrine if ever there was one) the return for effort is miserable.

So why didn't you just turn in an empty voting paper?? Means a hell of a lot more and actually has an affect. Not voting at all states nothing.

You can write or not write whatever the hell you like on a voting paper, but unless it's filled out correctly (ie boxes ticked) it just goes in the "Not Yet Competent" bin. Nup, I'll stick with no vote rather than a "you're too stupid to fill out a form correctly" vote.

Sorry but your opinion doesn't sway my reasoning, it's my message and I'll send it how I like.

Trouble is we don't just have crap political options we have crap political reporting. Our talking heads (I refuse to all them journalists) are more concerned with some bullshit tape about nothing than insightful investigation or reporting.

shrub

2nd December 2011, 07:58

Sweden had socialist cradle to the grave welfare Governments for a few decades and over the last few years that has been rolled back bigtime because it was unsustainable. Now they are doing very nicely with a right wing Government. They also didnt make the mistake of joining up to the Euro currency

*cough* bullshit *cough*. The economy was outperforming most of Europe with GDP growth in 04 of 4.1%, 2.9% in 05 and 4.2% in 06. In 06 GDP per hour was the 9th highest in the OECD at USD $31.00 ph. How does that demonstrate unsustainability? And in 2010 the left wing Social Democratic party had more seats than the right wing Moderates, but the moderates were able to form a coalition government.

shrub

2nd December 2011, 08:04

Cut your cloth however you like but you won't bridge the gap to the 20-30% higher average earnings they make in Oz. Fact is our wages are shameful, regardless of taxation, and no matter how "valuable and productive" you make yourself (there's a doctrine if ever there was one) the return for effort is miserable.

That's very true. By the time I have finished my masters I will have increase my earning capacity in NZ by around 40% over what it was when I started, but across the ditch I will be worth way more than that, and not only will I earn more, but there will be more options. Only problem is I love NZ, and I will be able to more than earn enough for a fucking good lifestyle, so why bother? You can only eat and drink so much, and I do too much of both as it is.

Trouble is we don't just have crap political options we have crap political reporting. Our talking heads (I refuse to all them journalists) are more concerned with some bullshit tape about nothing than insightful investigation or reporting.

you obviously haven't been listening to the National programme. It's interesting that John Key has avoided interviews with their journalists because I think he knows they will pull him to pieces, and the TV and newspapers often base their stories on what comes out on RNZ.

jonbuoy

2nd December 2011, 08:09

So when they fess up as to why they didn't vote, it is acceptable to invalidate that reason because they are to be ignored by default. Bit silly really (he said politely)

For someone as politically motivated as you seem to be on here I'm amazed you didn't vote.

Mental Trousers

2nd December 2011, 08:12

You can write or not write whatever the hell you like on a voting paper, but unless it's filled out correctly (ie boxes ticked) it just goes in the "Not Yet Competent" bin. Nup, I'll stick with no vote rather than a "you're too stupid to fill out a form correctly" vote.

Sorry but your opinion doesn't sway my reasoning, it's my message and I'll send it how I like.

An empty ballot paper is an actual, clear statement. An incorrectly filled out ballot paper is one that has been written on or otherwise filled in with anything other than a single tick in either column, not a blank one.

Being lumped in with those who can't be bothered, those who don't give a rat's arse, those who are just too thick to know what it's all about, those who have no interest in the governance of the country, those who are not yet competent, those who are too stupid to fill out a form correctly, your message (whatever it is) is lost.

Trouble is we don't just have crap political options we have crap political reporting. Our talking heads (I refuse to all them journalists) are more concerned with some bullshit tape about nothing than insightful investigation or reporting.

Can't believe how hung up on a single conversation those clowns were. Seems that for many of those talking heads (you're right that they don't deserve to be called Journalists) that informal conversation over a cup of tea was the focus of the entire election.

oneofsix

2nd December 2011, 08:13

For someone as politically motivated as you seem to be on here I'm amazed you didn't vote.

As politically motivated as the Exclusive Brethren perhaps. Don't vote yourself but try to influence others this way you don't take any of the blame.

MisterD

2nd December 2011, 08:19

It's interesting that John Key has avoided interviews with their journalists because I think he knows they will pull him to pieces are heavily biased to the left, and the TV and newspapers often base their stories on what comes out on RNZ.

Fixed for you.

Scuba_Steve

2nd December 2011, 08:27

Fixed for you.

left wing media???:facepalm: Where da fuck do you people come up with this shit??? Rose tinted glasses much!

avgas

2nd December 2011, 08:59

Not all options are rope, and in fact some are the opposite of rope.
Quicksand? I would rather stay off the topic of dictatorship.

MisterD

2nd December 2011, 09:01

left wing media???:facepalm: Where da fuck do you people come up with this shit??? Rose tinted glasses much!

Oh come off it, RNZ make the BBC look centrist at times.

avgas

2nd December 2011, 09:09

LOL. I had quite a few people say that to me - "I voted Green because I didn't want to vote for either Labour or National."
Me: "So, it wasn't because you liked their policies?"
Them: "I don't know what policies the Greens have but I don't want to sell our assets and I don't want to borrow any more money!"
:bash:
Likewise I hear people saying they vote Red to stop blue.....or vice versa :facepalm:
Are there ANY good politicians out there? Or is that an oxymoron and we should let them get in by "default".

avgas

2nd December 2011, 09:11

cough.....splutter........choke!
How dare you sirrah!

Was it easier to swallow when I called it "the blue rope"?
If so.....be concerned.

Scuba_Steve

2nd December 2011, 09:15

Oh come off it, RNZ make the BBC look centrist at times.

I don't listen to RNZ so I'm basing it on TV propaganda machine & since I dislike both sides equally I wear no rose tinted glasses so from what I was seeing (aside form the "tea party") the great propaganda machine were pushing Key Not Goff & last I checked Key was still slightly on the right side of the line.

But as people will only ever see what they want I'm going to assume your a "right wing" supporter & thus the media is "left wing" whereas I'm sure the "left wing" supporters here would probably go on about how the media is "right wing" Me I say the media supported both the 2 worst parties with a slight lean towards Key (aside from the "tea party" which the lean went to Winston don't know which side he's on?)

avgas

2nd December 2011, 09:19

What to change to is not what I'm talking about. But lots of people submitting an empty ballot paper says a hell of a lot more than being stuck with in with the apathetic lot.
Really?
Last time I checked a bunch of bikers singed various bits of paper to say they weren't happy about ACC.

Then they took another step and turned up on a certain door step. (Politely)

Nothing changed.

Perhaps the 25% have learned this already.........lost hope in the system.

Unfortunately if this in the case - and the pressure cooker has no relief valve. Eventually things happen.
Something tells me that the world population is losing its apathy - regardless of how their "leaders" are elected.

I would rather this was resolved calmly now, then blood in the streets later when people have truly had enough.
Unfortunately the "Unthinking Majority" have not cottoned on yet. Lazy voters are just as bad as Lazy Non-voters.

oneofsix

2nd December 2011, 09:31

Really?
Last time I checked a bunch of bikers singed various bits of paper to say they weren't happy about ACC.

Then they took another step and turned up on a certain door step. (Politely)

Nothing changed.

Perhaps the 25% have learned this already.........lost hope in the system.

Unfortunately if this in the case - and the pressure cooker has no relief valve. Eventually things happen.
Something tells me that the world population is losing its apathy - regardless of how their "leaders" are elected.

I would rather this was resolved calmly now, then blood in the streets later when people have truly had enough.
Unfortunately the "Unthinking Majority" have not cottoned on yet. Lazy voters are just as bad as Lazy Non-voters.

Yeah good luck with that. The greedy think they have a vested interest in not allowing peaceful chance. They stupidly don't realise that they have a choice to lose a little through peaceful change or lose the lot. They think they will prevent change and grab more, currently they are in the grab more phase which of course speeds up the violent change
:facepalm:

Mental Trousers

2nd December 2011, 09:37

Really?
Last time I checked a bunch of bikers singed various bits of paper to say they weren't happy about ACC.

Was that an election issue?? If not, why wasn't someone making it an election issue. Seems the biggest issue this time around was a cup of tea.

You appear to be supporting the idea that doing nothing does something. Yeah/nah??

MisterD

2nd December 2011, 09:40

I don't listen to RNZ so I'm basing it on TV propaganda machine & since I dislike both sides equally I wear no rose tinted glasses so from what I was seeing (aside form the "tea party") the great propaganda machine were pushing Key Not Goff & last I checked Key was still slightly on the right side of the line.

But as people will only ever see what they want I'm going to assume your a "right wing" supporter & thus the media is "left wing" whereas I'm sure the "left wing" supporters here would probably go on about how the media is "right wing" Me I say the media supported both the 2 worst parties with a slight lean towards Key (aside from the "tea party" which the lean went to Winston don't know which side he's on?)

I am right wing for sure, one of the 1406 that voted Libertarianz, who get bugger all coverage. It's just a fact of life, most journalists are left wing themselves and most NZ journalists aren't worthy of the title.

Why do NZ "journalists" :

Never bother to fact-check union or Labour party press releases?
Never challenge blatant lies from Phil Goff (such as the SIS briefing thing)?
Give the Green Party a complete free pass on everything?
Label anything to do with ACT "extreme" or "far-right"?

mashman

2nd December 2011, 09:45

For someone as politically motivated as you seem to be on here I'm amazed you didn't vote.

Oh I'm not politically motivated... unless you're missing a sarcastic smiley there.

mashman

2nd December 2011, 09:49

Unfortunately if this in the case - and the pressure cooker has no relief valve. Eventually things happen.
Something tells me that the world population is losing its apathy - regardless of how their "leaders" are elected.

I would rather this was resolved calmly now, then blood in the streets later when people have truly had enough.
Unfortunately the "Unthinking Majority" have not cottoned on yet. Lazy voters are just as bad as Lazy Non-voters.

+1.........

shrub

2nd December 2011, 09:58

Fixed for you.

If you can't counter what the person you're arguing with said, misquote them. I'd say it's probably your best strategy as the facts don't work in your favour.

The media in this country are generally pretty unbiased compared to a lot of countries, despite the howls to the contrary of the right wing, but let's say you're right, and RNZ are left wing. The facts are that John Key turned down numerous requests to come on air during the campaign, a theme that has been pretty consistent throughout his term. Why? Given that a major role of the media in a democracy is to provide politicians with a means of communicating with the broader public, does he not have anything he wants to say to us?

Also RNZ is different from TV in that the interviews are almost always significantly longer and more detailed, the opposing side is often given a chance to respond and frequently there is expert analysis afterwards, so it's a lot harder to get away with shit. So does John key not trust himself to undergo that degree of scrutiny? He loves TV, but TV is all about soundbites and that works well for Johnny boy. I suspect that the reason he was kept off RNZ was because he is a bit of a lightweight, and his minders on the 9th floor knew that he would not cope, and more significantly, that their policies wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny and debate. Which they don't, which is why you have to resort to misquoting me.

steve_t

2nd December 2011, 10:08

left wing media???:facepalm: Where da fuck do you people come up with this shit??? Rose tinted glasses much!

It didn't happen this time around but at the previous elections bloody Duncan Garner from 3News wore a red tie every day and his reporting was significantly favouring left.

Scuba_Steve

2nd December 2011, 10:12

I am right wing for sure, one of the 1406 that voted Libertarianz, who get bugger all coverage. It's just a fact of life, most NZ journalists aren't worthy of the title.

Why do NZ repeaters :

Never bother to fact-check anything?
Never challenge blatant lies from any politician?
Give the "brown-nose" parties a complete free pass on everything?
Label anything to do with ACT "extreme" or "far-right"?

fixed it up a little for ya, now it's looking more from my angle :yes:
And I definitely agree with the bold ain't no denying that

jonbuoy

2nd December 2011, 10:13

Oh I'm not politically motivated... unless you're missing a sarcastic smiley there.

Errr ok, your posts aren't about politics?

Scuba_Steve

2nd December 2011, 10:15

It didn't happen this time around but at the previous elections bloody Duncan Garner from 3News wore a red tie every day and his reporting was significantly favouring left.

That would just suggest they swing to whomever is in. Which to an extent is what I tend to see, meaning they are not left or right, they are Govt centred propaganda. So calling them "left wing" is residual & redundant as currently they would be "right wing"

Indiana_Jones

2nd December 2011, 10:16

+1 regarding the media.

They wank on about the Greens being all 'progressive' etc

Something like Act or Conservative gets labled as backwards and redneck etc

The media just love a good beat up, beat up on Clark, beat up on Key.

Whoever the incumbent is really, be it left or right.

-Indy

mashman

2nd December 2011, 10:23

Errr ok, your posts aren't about politics?

Amongst other things, but I wouldn't say I was politically motivated.

jonbuoy

2nd December 2011, 10:32

Amongst other things, but I wouldn't say I was politically motivated.

Mate you tear into the monetary system, social welfare, vilify the 1%'ers and say you know of a better system but aren't politically motivated? Or clearly even that bothered to vote in a general election?

mashman

2nd December 2011, 10:52

Mate you tear into the monetary system, social welfare, vilify the 1%'ers and say you know of a better system but aren't politically motivated? Or clearly even that bothered to vote in a general election?

Surely if I was politically motivated I'd vote? and since when did logic and wanting a better society go hand in hand with political motivation?

jonbuoy

2nd December 2011, 19:35

Ah ok, you want whine and moan about the system and the man keeping you down but not do anything about it?

mashman

2nd December 2011, 19:55

Ah ok, you want whine and moan about the system and the man keeping you down but not do anything about it?

Ha ha ha haaaaa... The man isn't keeping me down, he's just doing everything he feels like and to hell with everyone else and that affects me negatively, and if it affects me negatively, christ knows what other people less fortunate are going through... and I think that's a bit selfish of them really. I know what I'd like to do about it, but I'm a lover, not an anarchist.

jonbuoy

2nd December 2011, 20:03

Ha ha ha haaaaa... The man isn't keeping me down, he's just doing everything he feels like and to hell with everyone else and that affects me negatively, and if it affects me negatively, christ knows what other people less fortunate are going through... and I think that's a bit selfish of them really. I know what I'd like to do about it, but I'm a lover, not an anarchist.

Vote for the party that comes closest to what you think?

mashman

2nd December 2011, 20:08

Vote for the party that comes closest to what you think?

close isn't good enough.

Big Dave

2nd December 2011, 21:10

But John Key is so nice, how could he mine the south island!!??!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BmtEI9NWuz0#t=365s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BmtEI9NWuz0#t=359s)

avgas

2nd December 2011, 21:19

Was that an election issue?? If not, why wasn't someone making it an election issue. Seems the biggest issue this time around was a cup of tea.

You appear to be supporting the idea that doing nothing does something. Yeah/nah??
Wasn't an election issue. But Democracy is more than voting for gubbermint every 4 years. Unfortunately many don't know this.
I didn't really understand it either until I went to communist china. Now I do.......I see massive issues with the way we implement democracy in NZ.

As for the nothing doing something. Nah not that stupid, I know nothing does nothing. But I now ask you to question if voting actually does anything?
Or is it SSDD?

Industry in NZ is light years ahead of the poor ol' government.
People in NZ are light years ahead of the poor ol' government.

So what should we do to change this? Bit of paper doesn't seem to do it, people have been doing it here for a while.
As stated earlier, I would rather things were fixed smartly now - rather than violently later. Because people won't be "non-voters" or "lazy vote whatever voters" forever.
Eventually the penny with drop. And people will be fed up.

BoristheBiter

3rd December 2011, 11:33

mashman

3rd December 2011, 13:34

The difference between a company and a country is, if you have dead wood in a company you let them go, none profit areas get cut back or out sourced try doing that with a country.

they are :shifty: (trying)

BoristheBiter

3rd December 2011, 14:52

they are :shifty: (trying)

yes, but people won't let them cut off the dead wood.

mashman

3rd December 2011, 16:28

yes, but people won't let them cut off the dead wood.

yet that's what they've been doing the past few years, cutting services, merging departments, becoming "more efficient" etc... it certainly hasn't stopped them trying... tis a shame that under those circumstances, tis the non dead wood that bails. Granted that's a generalisation, but no-one likes working under the threat of losing their job and if they're any way competent, they'll bail... meanwhile to dole Q rises, people lose their livelihoods, houses, undergo family stresses etc... fuck I hate the byproduct of cutting the "dead wood".

Pussy

3rd December 2011, 16:33

... fuck I hate the byproduct of cutting the "dead wood".

I hate paying for the dead wood.

mashman

3rd December 2011, 16:37

I hate paying for the dead wood.

:violin: next time, make sure he pops a pill before hand :whistle:

FJRider

3rd December 2011, 17:13

Wasn't an election issue. But Democracy is more than voting for gubbermint every 4 years. Unfortunately many don't know this.
I didn't really understand it either until I went to communist china. Now I do.......I see massive issues with the way we implement democracy in NZ.

Ummm ... it's every three years actually ... (here in NZ anyway ... did you not know that ???)

As for the nothing doing something. Nah not that stupid, I know nothing does nothing. But I now ask you to question if voting actually does anything?
Or is it SSDD?

Doing nothing means somebody else does it for you. NOT necessarily the way YOU want it done.
Not only did registered voters NOT vote in their thousands ... eligible voters did not register in the thousands as well ...
And if you think ALL those people NOT voting ... does NOTHING ... will make NO CHANGE to the political system of OUR goverment ... perhaps you are that stupid.

Blank ballot papers and incorrectly filled ones are recorded only as INVALID votes and are not/do not ... count towards the final outcome.

Industry in NZ is light years ahead of the poor ol' government.
People in NZ are light years ahead of the poor ol' government.

I beg to differ ... Industry is reliant on goverment policy for survival and are usually only interested in making a profit. With only the interests of their own company on their mind.

Considering the result ... and the number of those that didn't register to vote, and those that did ... but didn't vote ... There are a LOT of people in NZ (far to many) that have no bloody idea ...

So what should we do to change this? Bit of paper doesn't seem to do it, people have been doing it here for a while.

If everybody that could ... and should vote ... the change might be quite radical ...

A goverment the way the MAJORITY want ...

DrunkenMistake

3rd December 2011, 18:29

But John Key is so nice, how could he mine the south island!!??!!

Well...

251891

avgas

3rd December 2011, 19:51

Doing nothing means somebody else does it for you. NOT necessarily the way YOU want it done.

Only if you work on the principal things get done. I have experienced the opposite. If you don't do it. Doesn't get done. If the government doesn't have 100% of the peoples support.....why do we fill the house?
If I don't have 100% of the resources behind me.......I usually am not allowed to do things.

Not only did registered voters NOT vote in their thousands ... eligible voters did not register in the thousands as well ...
And if you think ALL those people NOT voting ... does NOTHING ... will make NO CHANGE to the political system of OUR goverment ... perhaps you are that stupid.

Blank ballot papers and incorrectly filled ones are recorded only as INVALID votes and are not/do not ... count towards the final outcome.
Sad to hear about people not enrolling. But I guess people live busy lives so I can see where that is coming from.
Your 100% correct about non-votes not counting in the current system. As mentioned earlier - I have always stated that I know they are wasted. But my concern is that what if this ignored data is actually hiding a bigger problem in NZ.
I would like to live in a New Zealand that addressed problems. My ancestors had that. They got stuff like voting for women etc.
Are you saying that 1/4 of NZ not voting is not a problem?

I beg to differ ... Industry is reliant on goverment policy for survival and are usually only interested in making a profit. With only the interests of their own company on their mind.
I really suggest you investigate this further. What you have described is actually the NZ government. NZ industry has an element of this - but contrary to popular belief.......they are actually make moves well before the NZ Govt discusses them.
Not saying they are angels. But just saying - NZ govt isn't exactly doing us many favours lately.

Considering the result ... and the number of those that didn't register to vote, and those that did ... but didn't vote ... There are a LOT of people in NZ (far to many) that have no bloody idea ...
If everybody that could ... and should vote ... the change might be quite radical ...
A goverment the way the MAJORITY want ...
Yeah that will fix it. :facepalm:
VOTE DAMN YOU! THEN WE ALL GET THE GOVT WE WANT! MAJORITY WINS!
Because democracy is all about compulsory voting, forcing govt rule upon us.

As mentioned earlier. I see a problem. I don't see compulsory voting being the silver bullet. There are reasons why people don't vote - until we address the problems you can scream red and blue until the cows come home.
What next put a gun to peoples head until they vote? How democratic.
What if they had the option to vote for no government? Would you accept that % as legitimate.

There is a problem. It needs to be addressed. If it doesn't my son's generation could end up hiding in their homes as people 'vote' in the street.

rainman

3rd December 2011, 21:05

Why does it have to be one or t'other? Why can't we lead the world in clean green mining and sell the tech overseas?

'Cos we're not smart enough.

I believe over the next few months John and Bill will stand before us with serious expressions

TINA mark 2, absolutely, it is on the way.

Official government debt June 2008: $17.85 bn or 9.7% of GDP
Official government debt June 2011: $40.80 bn or 20.4% of GDP

That is the single biggest failing of the National government of the past few years, and not only will no-one hold them to account for it, they are still widely regarded as the best economic managers, and Labour regarded as the big borrowing party...

The last 3 years we have been in a recession and had to borrow to get ourselves out of it

So, they're Keynesians? Weird, but OK let's go with that. What did they spend the extra borrowing on, and how well did it stimulate the economy? Are we back to solid growth yet?

Democracy doesn't work. Just like over populating the planet. I expect the masses will catch up with reality some time. I'm interested to see what usurps it.

I'm not, I suspect it will look a lot like fascism.

Lots of people putting in empty ballot papers has influence. It shows the Politicians and Parties that there's a significant number of people who aren't catered for, so then they have to find out why.

Why? They have been elected (or not, as the case may be), job done. I note Te Greens are the main people calling for an inquiry into the low turnout.

Oh come off it, RNZ make the BBC look centrist at times.

I think you malign them needlessly - they are actually pretty balanced. Just look left by comparison to the other partisan hacks.

most journalists are left wing themselves
...

Why do NZ "journalists" :

Never bother to fact-check union or Labour party press releases?
Give the Green Party a complete free pass on everything?
Label anything to do with ACT "extreme" or "far-right"?

Come off it, they were all over Labour for their costings (rightly) but little challenge for the Nats' numbers. I suspect they don't harass the Greens much because everyone else does it for them. And ACT is extreme.

The difference between a company and a country is, if you have dead wood in a company you let them go, none profit areas get cut back or out sourced try doing that with a country.

Good observation. So, perhaps running a country like a company is a dumb idea? Perhaps someone should tell the Nats and their voters.

I really suggest you investigate this further.

No, I think he has it right. Most successful NZ businesses have heavy state involvement in their early history, and there is no better way to build an industry sector than to prop it up with government support. There is little incentive for the business sector to build risky enterprises all on their own when governments are around to help them get started (and flog them the working project at the end - assuming it's a winner). The ethics of this are parlous of course, but it's commonplace.

Mental Trousers

3rd December 2011, 21:14

Why? They have been elected (or not, as the case may be), job done. I note Te Greens are the main people calling for an inquiry into the low turnout.

So those who win or do group hugs are the only ones that go looking for uncommitted votes?? Probably lucky you're not a Politician I guess. :doh:

FJRider

3rd December 2011, 21:30

... If the government doesn't have 100% of the peoples support.....why do we fill the house?
If I don't have 100% of the resources behind me.......I usually am not allowed to do things. [QUOTE]

Because it's a MAJORITY rules system. :facepalm:

By 100% of resources ... do you mean finances ... ??? :mellow:

[QUOTE=avgas;1130207644]Sad to hear about people not enrolling. But I guess people live busy lives so I can see where that is coming from.
Your 100% correct about non-votes not counting in the current system. As mentioned earlier - I have always stated that I know they are wasted. But my concern is that what if this ignored data is actually hiding a bigger problem in NZ.
I would like to live in a New Zealand that addressed problems. My ancestors had that. They got stuff like voting for women etc.
Are you saying that 1/4 of NZ not voting is not a problem?

Not to busy to moan if things dont turn out the way they want though ... :yes:

Perhaps if enough people spoke to their elected MP (regardless if it was the one they voted for) and rasised the issues with him/her ... problems may be addressed ... easier just to moan LOUDLY ... :killingme

I really suggest you investigate this further. What you have described is actually the NZ government. NZ industry has an element of this - but contrary to popular belief.......they are actually make moves well before the NZ Govt discusses them.
Not saying they are angels. But just saying - NZ govt isn't exactly doing us many favours lately.

If NZ industry make moves that are contradiction to goverment policy/principals/intentions ... goverment changes the rules ... but light years ahead ... I wouldn't say that at all.
NZ industry is always looking for the lawful loophole that can give them the edge, over the rest in their line of business ... (ie: The competition)

Yeah that will fix it. :facepalm:
VOTE DAMN YOU! THEN WE ALL GET THE GOVT WE WANT! MAJORITY WINS!
Because democracy is all about compulsory voting, forcing govt rule upon us.

Apart from the fact voting is NOT comulsory ... (but it IS compulsory to be registered to vote ... by law) .... Democracy IS about the MAJORITY. Majority gives mandate ... (apparently :innocent:)

Just that the single minded, self-centered, ass-holes (MOST of whom didn't vote) want the goverment (or MP) to do more for them... or want the rules changed (to suit THEM more) :whocares:

As mentioned earlier. I see a problem. I don't see compulsory voting being the silver bullet. There are reasons why people don't vote - until we address the problems you can scream red and blue until the cows come home.
What next put a gun to peoples head until they vote? How democratic.

Incentive to vote ... (1000 fly-buy points awarded to EACH registered voter ... 10,000 to EACH that ACTUALLY voted ... then watch the fun come election day ... :killingme

RECORD 100% voter turnout (ok .... 98.9 %) I bet ... :yes:

What if they had the option to vote for no government? Would you accept that % as legitimate.

There is a problem. It needs to be addressed. If it doesn't my son's generation could end up hiding in their homes as people 'vote' in the street.

The simple fact is the GOVERMENT is just as much a BUSINESS ... as ANY in the private sector ... it stands to reason ... SOMEBODY must be in charge. MP's are heads of department .. or at least "office managers" and as such ... responsible to the CEO (Prime Minister) :yawn:

Those that believe that it "wont matter" if they dont vote ... think of the 25% that didn't vote (give or take a few %) with votes of 5 % required to get a PARTY seat into Goverment ... FIVE PARTY seats were WASTED ... (to use a popular term.) :blink:

rainman

3rd December 2011, 22:01

So those who win or do group hugs are the only ones that go looking for uncommitted votes??

Doubtless of some interest but that's what internal polling close to the next election is for, A lot can change in 3 years.

The simple fact is the GOVERMENT is just as much a BUSINESS ... as ANY in the private sector ... it stands to reason ... SOMEBODY must be in charge. MP's are heads of department .. or at least "office managers" and as such ... responsible to the CEO (Prime Minister)

Save me from the empty managerialism... That there are parallels between business and government does not mean they are identical.

FJRider

3rd December 2011, 22:08

Save me from the empty managerialism... That there are parallels between business and government does not mean they are identical.

Even CHARITYS are now run as a business ... but STILL a charity none the less ...

FEW ... (if any) ... BUSINESS'S ... are identical ... Depends who is running them ..

slowpoke

3rd December 2011, 22:53

Seems to me a few people have got the cart before the horse. Surely the most important issue is what you are voting for rather than the act of ticking a box. If the options are crap then the act of voting is crap. How is voting for anything that worsens the situation as you see it a remotely intelligent choice?

Voting is an expression of your belief in the way forward. I didn't agree with any proposed way forward so I opted not to endorse any proposal.

If you voted, what beliefs were you voting for? Increased taxation? Raising the retirement age? Selling State assets? Mining/exploration in conservation areas? Keeping our forces in Afganistan? Legalise cannabis? Introduction of same-sex marriage?

How can you vote in good consience if you don't believe in the options? Because JK seems like a good fella? Because your family has always voted (insert party here)? Because it makes you personally better off and to hell with everyone else?

Nup, until I see a combination of policies that I believe will take NZ forward I'll treasure my vote rather than cast it before swine.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 00:56

Surely the most important issue is what you are voting for rather than the act of ticking a box. If the options are crap then the act of voting is crap. How is voting for anything that worsens the situation as you see it a remotely intelligent choice?

As always ... no such thing as thinking it's a perfect life ... or a perfect system. If you DO ... you will ALWAYS be disappointed. At best, taking a best option is all you can do. If you cant be bothered learning what those options are ... .

Voting is an expression of your belief in the way forward. I didn't agree with any proposed way forward so I opted not to endorse any proposal.

That's a bullshit cop-out if ever I heard one.

Was there something on TV you wanted to watch instead ... ???

If you voted, what beliefs were you voting for? Increased taxation? Raising the retirement age? Selling State assets? Mining/exploration in conservation areas? Keeping our forces in Afganistan? Legalise cannabis? Introduction of same-sex marriage?

How can you vote in good consience if you don't believe in the options? Because JK seems like a good fella? Because your family has always voted (insert party here)? Because it makes you personally better off and to hell with everyone else?

Nup, until I see a combination of policies that I believe will take NZ forward I'll treasure my vote rather than cast it before swine.

My opinion ... only a pig would question/comment (on) anothers vote decision ... when they didn't vote themselves ...
A vote is a small step at the start of a long journey. Being part of the percentage that didn't bother ... is nothing to be proud of.

Oh ... enjoy the wait ... and enjoy the results of those that DID vote ...

I await the dribble you will come up with in future years ...

Big Dave

4th December 2011, 01:18

>>I await the dribble you will come up with in future years ...<<

I love sound or irony in the mornings.

slowpoke

4th December 2011, 06:02

As always ... no such thing as thinking it's a perfect life ... or a perfect system. If you DO ... you will ALWAYS be disappointed. At best, taking a best option is all you can do. If you cant be bothered learning what those options are ... .

That's a bullshit cop-out if ever I heard one.

Was there something on TV you wanted to watch instead ... ???

My opinion ... only a pig would question/comment (on) anothers vote decision ... when they didn't vote themselves ...
A vote is a small step at the start of a long journey. Being part of the percentage that didn't bother ... is nothing to be proud of.

Oh ... enjoy the wait ... and enjoy the results of those that DID vote ...

I await the dribble you will come up with in future years ...

Haha, nice line in abuse devoid of reason, you're a natural politician.....hang on.....Winston? Is that you Winston?

mashman

4th December 2011, 08:15

As always ... no such thing as thinking it's a perfect life ... or a perfect system. If you DO ... you will ALWAYS be disappointed. At best, taking a best option is all you can do. If you cant be bothered learning what those options are ... .

I agree, there's no perfect life, there's no perfect system, but there are better systems that could offer "better" lives... hence Occupy.

I feel sorry for those who have such a lack of imagination that they feel the only option available to them is to vote for the status quo :bleh: As such and to quote a great man

That's a bullshit cop-out if ever I heard one.

Was there something on TV you wanted to watch instead ... ???

I do a great line in buckets of sand iffen you'd like one.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 08:17

Oh ... you're awake now ... :bleh:

FJRider

4th December 2011, 08:27

... but there are better systems that could offer "better" lives... hence Occupy.

Hows that working out for you ... ??? is your support financial ... or just written/verbal on a motorcycle website ... ???

I feel sorry for those who have such a lack of imagination that they feel the only option available to them is to vote for the status quo :bleh:

When/where I voted ... there was a large number of options available ...

I do a great line in buckets of sand iffen you'd like one.

They already are being used by you ... and your friends...

mashman

4th December 2011, 08:36

Hows that working out for you ... ??? is your support financial ... or just written/verbal on a motorcycle website ... ???

When/where I voted ... there was a large number of options available ...

They already are being used by you ... and your friends...

Not bad actually, a tad frustrating that I can't be a part of Occupy 24/7, but I feel awake. So my support is verbal, just as your support is nothing more than a tick on a piece of paper... although my support is 24/7, is yours any more fleeting than a minute in a polling booth?

Wow, a large number of options eh. Yet no "No confidence" option? I wonder why that is? Perhaps the flip floppers wouldn't flip flop and would tick the "No Confidence" option... maybe that's why such an option still it isn't there after all of these years. For the record, I registered to vote.

Oh dear, it must have hurt to type that, coz it hurt to read it... I expected more from KB :blink:

avgas

4th December 2011, 08:56

Hows that working out for you ... ???
Likewise.
Have things improved in your life since you have voted?

BoristheBiter

4th December 2011, 09:21

'
Good observation. So, perhaps running a country like a company is a dumb idea? Perhaps someone should tell the Nats and their voters.

Or maybe someone should tell labour that there is only so much money to give away on election bribes?
Or someone should tell those claiming a benefit who expect more.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 09:23

Likewise.
Have things improved in your life since you have voted?

Funily enough ... I did not expect much to change so soon after the election ...

DID YOU ... ???

BoristheBiter

4th December 2011, 09:26

yet that's what they've been doing the past few years, cutting services, merging departments, becoming "more efficient" etc... it certainly hasn't stopped them trying... tis a shame that under those circumstances, tis the non dead wood that bails. Granted that's a generalisation, but no-one likes working under the threat of losing their job and if they're any way competent, they'll bail... meanwhile to dole Q rises, people lose their livelihoods, houses, undergo family stresses etc... fuck I hate the byproduct of cutting the "dead wood".

It's because the services they cut are not the ones they should be cutting.
We all know how Labour likes a good election bribe that is unsustainable.
It's actually quite easy but most won't like or do what is necessary as they are full of self worth and entitlement.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 09:33

Wow, a large number of options eh. Yet no "No confidence" option? I wonder why that is? Perhaps the flip floppers wouldn't flip flop and would tick the "No Confidence" option... maybe that's why such an option still it isn't there after all of these years. For the record, I registered to vote.

You mean the I didn't / dont want to vote ... but I still want my voice heard option ...

How many of those that didn't vote have spoken at ANY time with their elected MP in the LAST three years ... on the subject of "other options" or even matters that affect them. AND/OR ... changes that they are looking/hoping for. ????

Or spoken with candidates from other parties ... on the same subject ... ???

avgas

4th December 2011, 09:53

Funily enough ... I did not expect much to change so soon after the election ...

DID YOU ... ???
Nope. But it happened anyway.

But what about past votes? Is there any you have regretted? Is there any you were disappointed in?
Did they make a difference?

Mine did, not all for the better either. Which is why I can kinda see where people are coming from with the lack of enthusiasm.
Same shit different day, same shit different government for them.

Not sure on how to fix that. But I have noticed that world wide people are becoming less complacent. As mentioned earlier not interested "Waiting to see if it blows up".
Nothing good can come from that. Today 25% of people don't vote, tomorrow they could stop working, 20 years from now they could be lighting molotovs on the street.
Whats the problem in fixing it now?

avgas

4th December 2011, 10:01

We all know how Labour likes a good election bribe that is unsustainable.
I recall people voting for National on the bribe of a tax cut. Did it happen? (genuine question - my accounts seem more empty than usual)
Many moons ago I voted Greens into my local area of BOP. They were going to do great things with the environment.

Nek minit you can't smack your kids.

Nek minit Rena.

When I voted National they were going to fix the economy.

Nek minit budget blowouts

When I voted labour they were going to help the working man.

Nek minit tax increases, and money for dancers.

Turns out my vote is dangerous. So I haven't trusted Red, Blue or Green since. Give em an inch and they take your arm off.

flyingcrocodile46

4th December 2011, 10:03

mashman

4th December 2011, 10:05

It's because the services they cut are not the ones they should be cutting.
We all know how Labour likes a good election bribe that is unsustainable.
It's actually quite easy but most won't like or do what is necessary as they are full of self worth and entitlement.

Are you saying that the govt don't know what they're doing? Now about that us agreeing thing, heh.
Do we? Reckon that's unique to Labour? Do they break election promises too?
:rofl: that's a peach given the reasons you put up against "my" society.

You mean the I didn't / dont want to vote ... but I still want my voice heard option ...

How many of those that didn't vote have spoken at ANY time with their elected MP in the LAST three years ... on the subject of "other options" or even matters that affect them. AND/OR ... changes that they are looking/hoping for. ????

Or spoken with candidates from other parties ... on the same subject ... ???

Nope... why the opposition to having "No Confidence" on the paper? A vote is a vote surely? At least you'd then have a true figure for those who just don't want to vote. It doesn't strike you as unusual that there isn't an option of "No Confidence"?

:rofl:, I wasn't impressed with my first encounter.

How many voters have spoken with any elected MP in the last 3 years? etc...

Your powers are weak old man.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 10:20

Nope. But it happened anyway.

But what about past votes? Is there any you have regretted? Is there any you were disappointed in?
Did they make a difference?

All in all .. The elected goverments of NZ have looked after me. I would not say they have done all I would have liked ... nor will I say they SHOULD have done more to suit my hopes and needs. I'M not that self centered ...

But I can say ... I have enjoyed a better standard of living, and enjoyed a better standard of care ... than can be expected in countries elsewhere ... (and I have seen this for myself)

Mine did, not all for the better either. Which is why I can kinda see where people are coming from with the lack of enthusiasm.
Same shit different day, same shit different government for them.

Even under the MMP system ... it is still a majority rules system. Whatever party is in goverment.

ONE vote does count ... if thousands vote the same way. And you may never know if others feel the same way as you ... if YOU don't vote.

I have stated in earlier posts that an incentive to vote is needed ... perhaps the "need to change" IS that incentive ...

Not sure on how to fix that. But I have noticed that world wide people are becoming less complacent. As mentioned earlier not interested "Waiting to see if it blows up".
Nothing good can come from that. Today 25% of people don't vote, tomorrow they could stop working, 20 years from now they could be lighting molotovs on the street.
Whats the problem in fixing it now?

The MAJORITY of the voters THIS year ... voted their party vote for National.

National now has the mandate they were seeking ... without the reliance of the minor party vote on/for major issues ...

Had the 25 % of registered voters that didn't vote ... did vote for a party OTHER than National ... Would you feel ANY different about the result... ???

Voting is about electing the party that BEST suits your needs ... not expecting a party that will ONLY suit/serve your needs ... to the last degree ...

FJRider

4th December 2011, 10:26

Nope... why the opposition to having "No Confidence" on the paper? A vote is a vote surely? At least you'd then have a true figure for those who just don't want to vote. It doesn't strike you as unusual that there isn't an option of "No Confidence"?

Your powers are weak old man.

What is this "No confidence" thing ... ???

Is it a no confidence (vote option) in a Party, or Goverment ... or an Election result that YOU like ... ???

mashman

4th December 2011, 10:39

What is this "No confidence" thing ... ???

Is it a no confidence (vote option) in a Party, or Goverment ... or an Election result that YOU like ... ???

I'm sure it would be translated by different people to mean different things... my 2c, it'll be no confidence in any party having policy that meets an individuals "requirements". If it was in the govt or election result, it'd be a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

Pussy

4th December 2011, 11:02

The democratic majority of NZ voters got what they wanted on election day. Result! :)

FJRider

4th December 2011, 11:03

I'm sure it would be translated by different people to mean different things...

Is that you Winston ... ???

my 2c, it'll be no confidence in any party having policy that meets an individuals "requirements".

Majority RULES ... remember ... :msn-wink: Is the concept of that beyond you ... ??

Start a ME FIRST political party ... oops forgot Winnie did that ... FAIL (to get the MAJORITY vote)

If it was in the govt or election result, it'd be a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

I believe we have enough horses(ass's) on site ... IN GOVERMENT TOO ... ??? :rolleyes:

Mind you ... If you DID start a political party ... as YOU would WANT it ... would it also suit EVERYBODY you know ... ??? (or at least a majority of those you know)

FROSTY

4th December 2011, 11:19

FJRider

4th December 2011, 11:40

Hey guys maybee someone can explain to me why most of us have to belt tighten and budget. Work harder and smarter. Yet in a population of only 4 million we need 121 pollies and all their hangers on? --surely the gubbiment shout lead by example

But they are leading by example ... didn't they recently get a pay rise .... ??? So they must think they've earned it.

They are highly qualified Pollies by the way ... (and where ELSE could they get a well paying job )

mashman

4th December 2011, 11:43

Is that you Winston ... ???

That means absolutely nothing to me... until there's a definition provided for "No confidence" it will mean different things to different people, you listed 3 different meanings yourself :).

Majority RULES ... remember ... :msn-wink: Is the concept of that beyond you ... ??

Start a ME FIRST political party ... oops forgot Winnie did that ... FAIL (to get the MAJORITY vote)

Nope, quite the opposite... which is why I'd like to see the "No Confidence" results of people that turned up to vote. (perhaps someone would bo a Boris and create a No Confidence party :shifty:)

??? if the parties are indicative of their leadership I can see why there was such a high non-voter turn out.

I believe we have enough horses(ass's) on site ... IN GOVERMENT TOO ... ??? :roll-eyes:

Mind you ... If you DID start a political party ... as YOU would WANT it ... would it also suit EVERYBODY you know ... ??? (or at least a majority of those you know)

heh, ner ner ner ner ner, takes one to know one... gawd I sound like....... you :shifty: Shame the govt are supposed to be the best of the best, beyond reproach, squeaky clean etc...

I have spoken with a few people about "my" party, oddly enough, but it's not my sole topic of conversation with people and it is a HUGE conversation when the box is opened. Although some love the idea, they still can't get their heads around the idea of there being no money. Citing lack of motivation, lack of rewards, tokens for trade, human nature (that always puts a smile on my face) and not much else really... plus they generally want to change the subject when they hit a wall in defence of their society :yes: (another chucklefest)... has me roaring with laughter as they enter the denial zone, "oh it just can't be done". The majority understand the concept after a relatively short priod of time, if they haven't already thought of it themselves... I'm pleasantly surprised at how many have already thought about it and accept that it makes sense (and I agree with them that it wouldn't be perfect etc...). When given the option between "my" society and the current one, nearly all, 99% (snigger, that'll never grow old... for me anyway) would rather live in "my" society. It would seem that the human being in them trumps what some refer to as the driving characteristics of human nature. As a side note, women have been harder to "convince". My wife was a nightmare to "convince", but she gets it and would happily live there.

I don't want to be part of political party as politics get in the way, I'd much prefer a cooperative.

BoristheBiter

4th December 2011, 12:10

I recall people voting for National on the bribe of a tax cut. Did it happen? (genuine question - my accounts seem more empty than usual)
Many moons ago I voted Greens into my local area of BOP. They were going to do great things with the environment.

Nek minit you can't smack your kids.

Nek minit Rena.

When I voted National they were going to fix the economy.

Nek minit budget blowouts

When I voted labour they were going to help the working man.

Nek minit tax increases, and money for dancers.

Turns out my vote is dangerous. So I haven't trusted Red, Blue or Green since. Give em an inch and they take your arm off.

See that's what makes you, and quite a lot more, stupid voters. The ones that are targeted when they release these stupid, blatant vote bribes.
The ones that flip-flop every election in the hopes that YOU will get something better.
I have voted National every election because I like what the party is about, not what they have promised the flip-floppers this term, not who can over talk someone in a bollocks debate.

Are you saying that the govt don't know what they're doing? Now about that us agreeing thing, heh.
Do we? Reckon that's unique to Labour? Do they break election promises too?
:rofl: that's a peach given the reasons you put up against "my" society.

I am saying that if they did what was truly needed they would be voted out in a heart beat. To many are stupidly swayed by vote bribes.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 12:14

... until there's a definition provided for "No confidence" it will mean different things to different people, you listed 3 different meanings yourself :).

You only gave your selfish ME FIRST "definition" ...

.... which is why I'd like to see the "No Confidence" results of people that turned up to vote. (perhaps someone would bo a Boris and create a No Confidence party :shifty:)

As I understand it ... for some reason ... :innocent: ... only VALID votes are counted ... :sleep:

I would struggle to have confidence in a "No Confidence" party ... :doh:

??? if the parties are indicative of their leadership I can see why there was such a high non-voter turn out.

But there WAS a high result in vote numbers ... for ONE political party ... :bleh:

Shame the govt are supposed to be the best of the best, beyond reproach, squeaky clean etc...

They are only HUMAN ... apparently ... :msn-wink:

I don't want to be part of political party as politics get in the way, I'd much prefer a cooperative.

Yes ... much better to let others do it all ... eh ... ???

Cooperatives work ... but only if EVERYBODY is cooperative ... :rolleyes:

And I think would clash with your personal "Me First" policy thoughts ... :doh:

Winston001

4th December 2011, 12:49

FJRider

4th December 2011, 13:12

Unregistered voters and non-voters are of interest to political scientists and there have been numerous studies. Unfortunately the very nature of the beast (disinterest in voting) makes such people difficult to find and question: they aren't interested in taking part in surveys either. :D

Political parties are not quite so interested. Focusing time, money, and effort on non-voters is risky compared with campaigning to persuade active voters. Its damned hard to get a person to vote if they really do not care or don't trust the "system".

There was a low voter turnout at this election. In a moderate democracy like NZ this tells us many people are satisfied with the status quo. In other words the non-voters do not think any radical changes are necessary so they don't bother.

We see high turnouts in times of trouble.

Considering the recent announcement of a grant for research on porn ... the study of non-voters may be a reasonable subject (money spinner) for an enterprising person to begin ...

I past years, attempts by some parties to boost registered numbers, and take them to the polling stations ... usually more a PR exercise ... result. Than more votes ... result for them.

Weather pays a big part in voter turnout ... (rain and numbers are down) but fine weather prevailed ...

I think the non-voters must just be happy with their lot ... :chase:

mashman

4th December 2011, 13:25

I am saying that if they did what was truly needed they would be voted out in a heart beat. To many are stupidly swayed by vote bribes.

Why would they be voted out if they're doing what needs to be done?

You only gave your selfish ME FIRST "definition" ...

I gave an opinion in light of there being no definition. Are you a lawyer?

As I understand it ... for some reason ... :innocent: ... only VALID votes are counted ... :sleep:

I would struggle to have confidence in a "No Confidence" party ... :doh:

So put "No Confidence" on the paper and let me cast a valid vote for what I (and others) believe.

So even though you don't know what the No Confidence party stands for, the name would put you off? Ahhh, the pathetic standards of voters these days... can't say I'm surprised.

But there WAS a high result in vote numbers ... for ONE political party ... :bleh:

And?

They are only HUMAN ... apparently ... :msn-wink:

Are they? Agent Smiths definition might be more appropriate.

Yes ... much better to let others do it all ... eh ... ???

Cooperatives work ... but only if EVERYBODY is cooperative ... :rolleyes:

And I think would clash with your personal "Me First" policy thoughts ... :doh:

I would expect those who want the responsibility and are equipped for it would be the right people for the job... heart in the right place being a pre-requisite. (most of that rules me out)

So you wouldn't be cooperative? And not everyone would have to be cooperative, just the majority apparently.

:rofl: why would I suggest a cooperative if it was against my policy thoughts? Have you been on the sauce this morning? ME FIRST doesn't work.

mashman

4th December 2011, 13:32

There was a low voter turnout at this election. In a moderate democracy like NZ this tells us many people aren't satisfied with the status quo. In other words the non-voters think radical changes are necessary so they don't bother, as no party offers this.

I've changed, and added to the above to mirror my own selfish perspective on not voting. Perhaps others share a similar view.

BoristheBiter

4th December 2011, 13:39

Why would they be voted out if they're doing what needs to be done?

.

I gave you more credit than having to explain that.

mashman

4th December 2011, 14:02

I gave you more credit than having to explain that.

some of the boys and girls might not know the answer... :devil2:

:shifty: Why would they be voted out after being voted in by the majority, policies and intentions known etc... why all of a sudden would they be voted out after having such a land-slide victory?

I want to read you saying it :bleh:

davereid

4th December 2011, 14:02

An interesting twist may develop from this.

National are claiming that they have a mandate to sell assets, as they won the election.

It seems that if Labour win the next election, and Mr. Cunliffe is p.m. he will use legislation to Nationalise them, claiming the same mandate I would imagine.

The interesting thing about selling the shares is that you get market price. When you Nationalise them, its done by regulation. The government can simply name the price it will pay, if any.

On TV1 this morning Mr Cunliffe said "I don't stand for a paler shade of blue, and I want to look down the barrel and say this: if the Government is going to sell off precious state assets then we would not rule out re-nationalising some of them. And people need to be aware of that regulatory risk.''

IMHO This is a clear threat that nationalisation were it to occur would not necessarily be at market value.

He seems to be saying - "buy these shares if you want.. but be aware we haven't ruled out just passing a law to simply take them back"

Hitcher

4th December 2011, 14:24

Mr. Cunliffe is p.m. he will use legislation to Nationalise them

Silent T has to become the leader of a political party first.

FJRider

4th December 2011, 14:33

Why would they be voted out if they're doing what needs to be done?

Perhaps ... because what needs to be done, is not always what the majority (there's that word again) want ...

I gave an opinion in light of there being no definition. Are you a lawyer?

In light of there being no definition of the "no confidence" option you (and others) suggested ... and your opinion is that that an individual voters option, suggests to me ... is more important than the countrys option as a whole ... and no I'm not. But thank you for asking ... :laugh:

So put "No Confidence" on the paper and let me cast a valid vote for what I (and others) believe.

As I understand ... only valid votes for the listed political party are counted towards the final outcome. The "no confidence" option as a valid vote ... would be counted ... but as they were NOT for a listed political party ... do not count towards the final outcome.

As I see it ... just a big a waste of time as not voting ... (much the same as going to the toilet and just sitting there ....)

So even though you don't know what the No Confidence party stands for,

YOU can't even give me a definitition of what it means ...

the name would put you off? Ahhh, the pathetic standards of voters these days... can't say I'm surprised.

An ironic name for a party anyway ... and from a declared (pathetic) NON voter ... I find your comment a little hypocritical ... at the very least ...

And?

The VOTERS have spoken ... dont like it ... maybe in three years ... VOTE for change ... :laugh:

I would expect those who want the responsibility and are equipped for it would be the right people for the job... heart in the right place being a pre-requisite. (most of that rules me out)

:rofl: why would I suggest a cooperative if it was against my policy thoughts? Have you been on the sauce this morning? ME FIRST doesn't work.

The individual (me first) policys were your suggestion ... and I know they wont work.

If you dont like the system we have ... vote for change ...

Why would you suggest (etc) ... it beats the hell out of me too, you as a declared "me first" non voter ... that wants others to do all the hard work ... only ONE reason comes to light. Lazyness ...

I dont know why you bother ... oh I forgot ... you didn't ...

avgas

4th December 2011, 14:39

holy fuck. I completely forgot to cry over this.

Damn! My tears might have made some difference.

Thank dog there are so many cry babies out there who will keep the river flowing for the rest of us. What on earth would we do without those brave souls:rolleyes:
Probably the same as what we would do without politicians ;) Hang on, perhaps we would do more without both these groups :devil2:

On a side note, according to KB law this thread should be closed. And the topic of politics be placed in the same realms as religion and fine alcohol :baby: (Ironically "sports" is still a free topic).

This topic is getting more attention than a voting both on election day........:laugh:

FJRider

4th December 2011, 14:43

On a side note, according to KB law this thread should be closed. And the topic of politics be placed in the same realms as religion

John Key is god now ... He got the mandate last weekend ... :killingme

avgas

4th December 2011, 14:49

Considering the recent announcement of a grant for research on porn ... the study of non-voters may be a reasonable subject (money spinner) for an enterprising person to begin ...

I past years, attempts by some parties to boost registered numbers, and take them to the polling stations ... usually more a PR exercise ... result. Than more votes ... result for them.

Weather pays a big part in voter turnout ... (rain and numbers are down) but fine weather prevailed ...

I think the non-voters must just be happy with their lot ... :chase:
Oh are you going soft and starting to listen? :devil2::rolleyes:
Yeah I have always wondered how come I can screw people the world over from the comforts of home, but to do it to a politician I need to get off my arse and visit a school.
I think I have a solution, people don't watch the 7's for the rugby......perhaps we make voting like going to the rugby 7's. Everyone gets dresses up, everyone gets hammered.
Sounds like a great idea, unlike those crap parties National and Labour run. Was there even alcohol there this year?

davereid

4th December 2011, 14:55

Silent T has to become the leader of a political party first.

Indeed. But he was sitting with the other David when he made the statement, and he actually said "we" not "I".

It may be that the view is shared by others - Nationalisation is after all a darling of the left.

I'd also comment that, vocally and repeatedly making the threat would depress the value of the shares. Why buy them if the left have already told you they will seize them back at their valuation as soon as they are in government ?

Thats win-win for the left. They can claim the Nats got their figures wrong, and the assets were sold for petty cash.

And should they nationalise them at some stage in the future, and they choose to make a token effort at purchasing the shares, they would be able to value them at petty cash.

mashman

4th December 2011, 15:08

Perhaps ... because what needs to be done, is not always what the majority (there's that word again) want ...

As mentioned to Boris. You have only just voted them in knowing their policies and intentions... now you're moaning and bitching about them.

In light of there being no definition of the "no confidence" option you (and others) suggested ... and your opinion is that that an individual voters option, suggests to me ... is more important than the countrys option as a whole ... and no I'm not. But thank you for asking ... :laugh:

Not at all. If there was an option available of "No Confidence" and it won the election... surely that would highlight that there's something wrong. And as the No Confidence party wouldn't be allowed to govern, the parry with the most votes would govern. I fail to see the point in not having it on the paper, unless of course it gives the voters something to bitch about. Damn that's the second time I've used that work.

As I understand ... only valid votes for the listed political party are counted towards the final outcome. The "no confidence" option as a valid vote ... would be counted ... but as they were NOT for a listed political party ... do not count towards the final outcome.

I'm fine with that if you are.

As I see it ... just a big a waste of time as not voting ... (much the same as going to the toilet and just sitting there ....)

Why a waste of time? It's not your time that would be wasted, why should you care? At least I'd get to get vote for something I believed and didn;t just settle for something I'm gonna bitch about a week or so later.

YOU can't even give me a definitition of what it means ...

I gave you a definition and you didn't like it.

An ironic name for a party anyway ... and from a declared (pathetic) NON voter ... I find your comment a little hypocritical ... at the very least ...

:rofl: I'm not the one bitching about the parry I voted for.

The VOTERS have spoken ... dont like it ... maybe in three years ... VOTE for change ... :laugh:

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

The individual (me first) policys were your suggestion ... and I know they wont work.

Where are these "me first" policies you keep talking about? I haven't seen any.

If you dont like the system we have ... vote for change ...

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

Why would you suggest (etc) ... it beats the hell out of me too, you as a declared "me first" non voter ... that wants others to do all the hard work ... only ONE reason comes to light. Lazyness ...

I dont know why you bother ... oh I forgot ... you didn't ...

I didn't say anything beat the hell out of me.

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper. Seems to be a recurring theme, along with your bitching about the party that won the majority vote :bleh:

FROSTY

4th December 2011, 15:13

Would the ego's of the politicians allow such a thing as a vote of no confidence on a ballot paper? personally I think not

rainman

4th December 2011, 15:59

Or maybe someone should tell labour that there is only so much money to give away on election bribes?
Or someone should tell those claiming a benefit who expect more.

Both parties are fond of election bribes; only one of them gives them to people you don't like.

Either way, that's a poor comeback to the original point - being that governments who try to run countries like businesses are thick.

See that's what makes you, and quite a lot more, stupid voters. The ones that are targeted when they release these stupid, blatant vote bribes..
..
I have voted National every election because I like what the party is about

I'm with you on the first part of this - voting for "what's in it for me" is a good way of entrenching the populist vote-buying bullshit.
But I'm not with you on the second, and wouldn't be even if you said you voted Labour every election. You're defending tribal voting, binding the party to your personal identity, essesntially. This is ultimately lazy and is the kind of shit that leads to a majority regularly electing McCully because of the colour of his poster, despite him being a useless twat who does nothing for them.

I'd suggest the best way to vote is issues-based,considering the circumstances of the present reality we find ourselves in, as well as the past performance of the party and people on offer. Then pick the least worst. (I don't have much sympathy for the non-voters either).

FJRider

4th December 2011, 16:01

As mentioned to Boris. You have only just voted them in knowing their policies and intentions... now you're moaning and bitching about them.

I'm not bitching at all ... quite happy actually.

Not at all. If there was an option available of "No Confidence" and it won the election... surely that would highlight that there's something wrong. And as the No Confidence party wouldn't be allowed to govern, the parry with the most votes would govern. I fail to see the point in not having it on the paper, unless of course it gives the voters something to bitch about. Damn that's the second time I've used that work.

It COULD be a political party ... if the required funds were put up prior to the election (non refundable ... only if the party doesn't get a seat) Do you think any would front with the money ... ???

I'm fine with that if you are.

FINE by me ... :laugh:

Why a waste of time? It's not your time that would be wasted, why should you care? At least I'd get to get vote for something I believed and didn;t just settle for something I'm gonna bitch about a week or so later.

Be one of the 28,000 (random figurethat voted "no confidence" ... you ... not bitch :killingme

I gave you a definition and you didn't like it.[/QUOTE]

No ... you gave an opinion ... :rolleyes:

:rofl: I'm not the one bitching about the parry I voted for.

Actually ... I'm quite happy with the way things turned out ... :cool:

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

As the added cost to the tax paying public ... for no valid result (apart from pleasing a small number of people ...) I fail to see how and why it would happen. Excluding the formation of a "No Confidence Party" of course ...:msn-wink:

Where are these "me first" policies you keep talking about? I haven't seen any.

I was referring to the policys for the individual that you mentioned should be introduced. WHATthis entails ... I have no idea ...

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

And break your voting tradition ... don't do it for me ... :laugh:

Ocean1

4th December 2011, 16:09

If there was an option available of "No Confidence" and it won the election...

I think you'd find, (if you altered your non-reading philosophy for a while) that a vote of no-confidence already has a perfectly servicable definition. I suspect you'd also find that the whole concept is largely irrelevant for a Westminster system of government.

It might be used in a coalition where a majority stake-holder is undertaking to make changes a minority partner doesn't support. Here that'd be a funding and supply issue. If the majority partner can't rustle up enough support for a supply bill it's fuckt, you can't run a country without funds and there'd be an immediate election.

If you don't have confidence in any of the available candidates in an election you have the option of forwarding your own candidate. Simply failing to vote might not actually prevent you from complaining about any subsequent government but it sure as fuck makes your complaints a deal less valid.

SPman

4th December 2011, 16:10

that's what they've been doing the past few years, cutting services, merging departments, becoming "more efficient" etc... tis a shame that under those circumstances, tis the non dead wood that bailsI have a sister who works in the EQC (not on earthquakes). Prior to Christchurch, the main workforce was a tight-knit group of about 25 people, all skilled and competent,who all enjoyed their work. After ChCh.....the place has ballooned to over 1200 people! Reams of Business Analysts, an HR division, managers being appointed all over the place..people being transferred in from ACC and WINZ, complete with attitudes...the "core" 25 being marginalised and pushed to one side as "corporate climber" types scrabble about trying to build their little empires! Half the original skilled core have now left. The IT manager was replaced with 7 new IT guys, all on a higher salary than he was on! Her closest compatriot starts a new job in Brisbane in the new year (on twice what he was on) and she has been offered a similar job - which she's seriously thinking about, although it means packing up and moving. All those remaining hate their jobs and workplace, now, and are all looking for the door. The hard won core of experience is being lost, and no one seems to give a shit - this under a Nat. Government who are "cutting back the Gov. Service" and making a more efficient sector! Under Labour? probably no better.
The point of this post? Probably none, but those who rant on with "typical left wing stereotypes" are as deluded as those who rant on contrary wise. What is lacking in Governments around the world, is empathy with their population! The people who voted them in. They are looked upon, often from both sides, as an inconvenient impediment to business. The more ideological and business oriented the government, the less empathy. The less empathy, the more people are less inclined to vote.

"The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."
-- H.L. Mencken

mashman

4th December 2011, 17:08

I'm not bitching at all ... quite happy actually.
That's not how it sounds.

It COULD be a political party ... if the required funds were put up prior to the election (non refundable ... only if the party doesn't get a seat) Do you think any would front with the money ... ???

As mentioned above, turns out there is a No Confidence Party... but, Who's funding Occupy?

Be one of the 28,000 (random figurethat voted "no confidence" ... you ... not bitch :killingme

I care not what the numbers are as I'd be voting my way.

No ... you gave an opinion ... :rolleyes:

An opinion as to what the definition could be. :rofl:

Actually ... I'm quite happy with the way things turned out ... :cool:

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

As the added cost to the tax paying public ... for no valid result (apart from pleasing a small number of people ...) I fail to see how and why it would happen. Excluding the formation of a "No Confidence Party" of course ...:msn-wink:

If it's on the paper, it's a valid result? Cheaper than an inquiry trying to find out the same thing after the fact.

I was referring to the policys for the individual that you mentioned should be introduced. WHATthis entails ... I have no idea ...

What policies for the individual? didn't realise I'd put up any form of policy along those lines.

And break your voting tradition ... don't do it for me ... :laugh:

Anything's possible :yes:

mashman

4th December 2011, 17:20

I think you'd find, (if you altered your non-reading philosophy for a while) that a vote of no-confidence already has a perfectly servicable definition. I suspect you'd also find that the whole concept is largely irrelevant for a Westminster system of government.

It might be used in a coalition where a majority stake-holder is undertaking to make changes a minority partner doesn't support. Here that'd be a funding and supply issue. If the majority partner can't rustle up enough support for a supply bill it's fuckt, you can't run a country without funds and there'd be an immediate election.

If you don't have confidence in any of the available candidates in an election you have the option of forwarding your own candidate. Simply failing to vote might not actually prevent you from complaining about any subsequent government but it sure as fuck makes your complaints a deal less valid.

It's not a philosophy as much it is a fact that I am a very VERY painfully slow reader... takes up a hell of a lot of time that I could use for doing other things. I'd be happy with that definition though. I'm looking to vote, not change anything.

Aaaaaand that's why everyone's shitting themselves with Winnie back in parliament?

:rofl:@less valid. I'd rather not vote on the principle that there's nothing to vote for, than vote because it's the only thing that will give validity to my complaints... sounds pretty feckin childish and pathetic to me... social convention eh.

mashman

4th December 2011, 17:33

I have a sister who works in the EQC (not on earthquakes). Prior to Christchurch, the main workforce was a tight-knit group of about 25 people, all skilled and competent,who all enjoyed their work. After ChCh.....the place has ballooned to over 1200 people! Reams of Business Analysts, an HR division, managers being appointed all over the place..people being transferred in from ACC and WINZ, complete with attitudes...the "core" 25 being marginalised and pushed to one side as "corporate climber" types scrabble about trying to build their little empires! Half the original skilled core have now left. The IT manager was replaced with 7 new IT guys, all on a higher salary than he was on! Her closest compatriot starts a new job in Brisbane in the new year (on twice what he was on) and she has been offered a similar job - which she's seriously thinking about, although it means packing up and moving. All those remaining hate their jobs and workplace, now, and are all looking for the door. The hard won core of experience is being lost, and no one seems to give a shit - this under a Nat. Government who are "cutting back the Gov. Service" and making a more efficient sector! Under Labour? probably no better.
The point of this post? Probably none, but those who rant on with "typical left wing stereotypes" are as deluded as those who rant on contrary wise. What is lacking in Governments around the world, is empathy with their population! The people who voted them in. They are looked upon, often from both sides, as an inconvenient impediment to business. The more ideological and business oriented the government, the less empathy. The less empathy, the more people are less inclined to vote.

"The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."
-- H.L. Mencken

Bummer for yer sister.

I agree. Sorry to see that you see things as left and right wing stereotypes. I don't want empathy from my govt, I want sense that benefits everyone, not just those who work, or those who are unemployed, or those who have businesses, or those who exist in a salary bracket, or whatever label is chosen to separate 2 groups. We're just people with different skills and levels of intelligence. Seems a waste to fight against each other instead of for each other... more so where it comes to running a country. Hey ho.

As for your quote. Great generalisation.