Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?

[Hitcher]

That's the General Election I'm referring to.

I'm not interested in who you're going to vote for. I'm interested in who you think will win. Understood?

[Dafe]

National I hope. But whats got my attention is who will win the ever so important seat of Tauranga? Bob the Builder or Winnie?

I'd say Winnie since Bob's got an itchy crotch!

But if Bob wins, It will just go to show what a crock of shit our elections are. It will be a sad loss for this country if you loose somebody like Winston Peters who stands for alot of credible policies and who pushes worthwhile issues, for another old perverted and sex minded loser.

Go National!!!

[**R1**]

That's the General Election I'm referring to.

I'm not interested in who you're going to vote for. I'm interested in who you thing will win. Understood?I not sure i understanding, u wana know who i thing will win or not?:rofl:

[Hitcher]

I not sure i understanding, u wana know who i thing will win or not?:rofl:
Gulp. Good spot. Shudders visibly. Rep awarded...

[Skyryder]

I don't think we'll know on Saturday or even Sunday for that matter. Depends who gets the most seats out of the Greens or the Maori Party. Either one could go with National.................yes that's what I said. The way Brash has been trying to buy his way into power he is just as likely to scrap Nationals 'one people' policy to become PM.

But since you asked I'd still go with Labour and the status quo. :violin:

Skyryder

[ZorsT]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought there must have been some sporting event on this weekend...

I think a few things.... but I don't think about politics.

I don't like the politics of it all.

[Skyryder]

National will win. But whats got my attention is who will win the ever so important seat of Tauranga? Bob the Builder or Winnie?

I'd say Winnie since Bob's got an itchy crotch!

I think you may be right. Not because of the itchy crotch but Tauraunga's pretty consevitive and not likely to go for an unknown. Mind you if Winnie goes it's the end of an era in NZ politics. Like him or loath him it wont be the same with him gone.

Skyryder

[Hitcher]

I'd like to say "Don't discount ACT." But I think they're a gone-burger, unless Rodney pulls off an amazing result in Epsom.

The Maori Party winning seats will result in an "overhung" Parliament. And there were already too many politicians with their snouts in the taxpayer's purse...

[Motu]

I really don't know,and haven't decided myself yet.I think most want to see a change,we've had Labour a long time now and they get blamed for all our ills,when they are just applying policies that have to be confronted in the modern world.....but no one trusts Brash,he's weak and obviously happy to try any shady trick,he's certainly not a prefered Leader....but they may get enough votes to swing it...

[SPman]

National will win. But whats got my attention is who will win the ever so important seat of Tauranga? Bob the Builder or Winnie?------the poo!

[MikeL]

I really don't know,and haven't decided myself yet.I think most want to see a change,we've had Labour a long time now and they get blamed for all our ills,when they are just applying policies that have to be confronted in the modern world.....but no one trusts Brash,he's weak and obviously happy to try any shady trick,he's certainly not a prefered Leader....but they may get enough votes to swing it...

I agree. National will win. Most people won't look beyond the tax cuts. I actually feel a bit sorry for Don Brash. Six or nine months on, when it all turns to custard, who will get the blame? I doubt that by then he will have the political savvy to avoid the knife in the back.

[Beemer]

I reckon National will win - Labour has forgotten that there are heaps of people out there who don't breed and therefore want something just for THEM! As for Winnie, think his latest bout of nastiness ("who, me?") will backfire.

As for the Maori Party - I feel a spate (or should that be crate?) of Tui ads coming up if any of them get their feet under the table.

[ManDownUnder]

Traditional has it (in international election circles) that in this position the incumbent will win, but by a very slim margin, and the FOLLOWING election (2008) will result in a masive victory the other way

Here endeth my predicition!

Watch this space and gasp in awe as my thoughts come into reality!
MDU

[Indiana_Jones]

I'd like to say national, but I think that Labour will sneak in.

I have considered voting for ACT, but I kinda feel i'd be throwing my vote away....and that'd suck lol

-Indy

[BNZ]

I don't think we'll know on Saturday or even Sunday for that matter. Depends who gets the most seats out of the Greens or the Maori Party. Either one could go with National.................yes that's what I said. The way Brash has been trying to buy his way into power he is just as likely to scrap Nationals 'one people' policy to become PM.
Skyryder

Hahahaha. I think hell would have to freeze over before National went with Greens.

[Motu]

Hahahaha. I think hell would have to freeze over before National went with Greens.

Nor will the Maori Party - that's National's problem,no one to form a coalition with,but those minor parties pull the vote from Labour...this is a tricky one alright.

[Wolf]

I agree. National will win. Most people won't look beyond the tax cuts. I actually feel a bit sorry for Don Brash. Six or nine months on, when it all turns to custard, who will get the blame? I doubt that by then he will have the political savvy to avoid the knife in the back.
Give me the knife - I'd happily stick it into the lying snivelling little bastard. He's weak, stupid and resorts to filthy tactics then lies about his involvement.

He's also two-faced says one thing to a person's face then another behind their back - vis. that crap at the Wananga in Te Awamutu the other day. Says complimentary things to them after they've invited him in and then slams them when he's outside and completely retracts what he told them.

Kinda like his 180-degree on the matter of the smear campaign, isn't it.

The man has no integrity and when he finally is consigned to the political scrap-heap he will thoroughly deserve it. Wish it would happen today.

[Keystone19]

Don Brash is a male chauvanist pig and lost my vote when he said he couldn't argue with Helen Clark because she's a woman.

If the guy can't argue with a woman then he's going to get eaten up and spat out the second he gets into power.

This country should be proud of it's record in terms of equality of men and women, we don't need dickheads like Don Brash sending us all back to the dark ages.

Rant over...

[Mr Skid]

Give me the knife - I'd happily stick it into the lying snivelling little bastard. He's weak, stupid and resorts to filthy tactics then lies about his involvement.

He's also two-faced says one thing to a person's face then another behind their back - vis. that crap at the Wananga in Te Awamutu the other day. Says complimentary things to them after they've invited him in and then slams them when he's outside and completely retracts what he told them.

Kinda like his 180-degree on the matter of the smear campaign, isn't it.

The man has no integrity and when he finally is consigned to the political scrap-heap he will thoroughly deserve it. Wish it would happen today.Funny, most comentators are suggesting he's not cut out for political life. You seem to think exactly the opposite.

[Quasievil]

Well I Hope for this countries sake that National or the centre right wins, if it doesnt you WILL end up with a governemnt coalition made up of Labour Greens and the Maori party, that will spell a disaster for New Zealand, You WILL have on Going treaty issues, You WILL have higher taxes ie Carbon Tax as a result of the stupid labour signing up to the Kyoto protocol which is in itself a meaningless but expensive treaty which no one cares about.

As far as leaders go, I would prefer to have Mr Brash, he does have integrity and is an honest and proven leader of the economy, ie he did achieve the impossible task of enabling a 3% cap on inflation, he has been a successful CEO for over 30 years and thankfully he is not a career politician. the other camp , Mrs Clarke has no integrity or honesty and is snake like, ie Speeding motorcade she as head of the state let her employees take a fall, She mislead the public with the signing of the artwork, she performed in the airplane debarkle, she has no manners wearing slacks to meet the queen and sitting down before her at dinner, she insults the USA in relation to the Iraq war, she has a long long list of Fuck ups which can only point her out as a dishonest cunning and devious person. Not to mention the terrible policey her government has brought in holding the country to ransom.
A vote for the left is a vote for policey and disruption and dependant NZrs, a vote for the left is a vote for disaster in our economy and social improvement.
Would you really want the looneys in the greens in charge of policeys for our economy ?
For fucks sake leftys piss me off and people who vote without so much as a thought or a intelligent consideration for the power and privalage of their vote piss me off more !

Bennificeries are reliant on the state and will vote for that reliance ie vote for labour, as far as Im concerned if you are relaint on the state you should by default loose your right to vote, if you do not contribute to the economy why should your vote influence it ?

I have alot to say on this, best I shut up now before I piss some of you off

[Quasievil]

Don Brash is a male chauvanist pig and lost my vote when he said he couldn't argue with Helen Clark because she's a woman.

If the guy can't argue with a woman then he's going to get eaten up and spat out the second he gets into power.

This country should be proud of it's record in terms of equality of men and women, we don't need dickheads like Don Brash sending us all back to the dark ages.

Rant over...

He won that nights debate, he didnt need to argue, and since then he has held himself well against his opponents, watch tonights debate.
I dont think that respecting women makes you a chavanistic pig either, personally I would not act in a way such as Helen Clarke did to a woman or a man for that matter.
And besides Helen Clarke is not a woman, she is a man in a womans clothing this is obvious

[kerryg]

That's the General Election I'm referring to.

I'm not interested in who you're going to vote for. I'm interested in who you think will win. Understood?


I don't think anyone will "win" on Saturday. I'll be reckless and predict that Labour and National will collect similar vote numbers, that neither will have a majority and that who ends up governing the country will not emerge until several days later after the various coalition discussions have taken place.

I also forecast that the Greens, United Future and the Maori party will each reach the 5% threshold (and Pita Sharples is a shoe-in as an electorate MP), that Jim Anderton will retain Wigram and that this election will definitely see the end of Act in Parliament and probably also Winston Peters. I think Winnie has shot himself in the foot with this dirty campaign in Tauranga, and the Tauranga blue-rinse set will go for the horny pensioner standing for National...


Or not :wacko:

Bloody interesting election though.....

[Indiana_Jones]

Don Brash is a male chauvanist pig and lost my vote when he said he couldn't argue with Helen Clark because she's a woman.

How was he supposed know she was a women! :D

-Indy

[Motu]

Well I Hope for this countries sake that National or the centre right wins, if it doesnt you WILL end up with a governemnt coalition made up of Labour Greens and the Maori party, that will spell a disaster for New Zealand, You WILL have on Going treaty issues, You WILL have higher taxes ie Carbon Tax as a result of the stupid labour signing up to the Kyoto protocol which is in itself a meaningless but expensive treaty which no one cares about.

As far as leaders go, I would prefer to have Mr Brash, he does have integrity and is an honest and proven leader of the economy, ie he did achieve the impossible task of enabling a 3% cap on inflation, he has been a successful CEO for over 30 years and thankfully he is not a career politician. the other camp , Mrs Clarke has no integrity or honesty and is snake like, ie Speeding motorcade she as head of the state let her employees take a fall, She mislead the public with the signing of the artwork, she performed in the airplane debarkle, she has no manners wearing slacks to meet the queen and sitting down before her at dinner, she insults the USA in relation to the Iraq war, she has a long long list of Fuck ups which can only point her out as a dishonest cunning and devious person. Not to mention the terrible policey her government has brought in holding the country to ransom.
A vote for the left is a vote for policey and disruption and dependant NZrs, a vote for the left is a vote for disaster in our economy and social improvement.
Would you really want the looneys in the greens in charge of policeys for our economy ?
For fucks sake leftys piss me off and people who vote without so much as a thought or a intelligent consideration for the power and privalage of their vote piss me off more !

Bennificeries are reliant on the state and will vote for that reliance ie vote for labour, as far as Im concerned if you are relaint on the state you should by default loose your right to vote, if you do not contribute to the economy why should your vote influence it ?

I have alot to say on this, best I shut up now before I piss some of you off

Um...gosh - which secure National seat in Hamilton are you running for again?

[Biff]

Do National actually have any policies? I mean really? Not sound bites off the TV or radio, I mean firm, hard, well-researched policies?

I've contacted them several times now in order to get my hands on a manifesto, or something documenting their commitments and policies, but all I keep getting told is that they haven't released a policy for this, that and the other. And as for the policies they have released - 1/2 a fkin page for defence?! 1 1/2 pages (with lots of black bits) for finance. How the hell can you trust or vote for a party that doesn't have a clue what they intend on doing should they get in power.

I'm almost glad I'm not eligible to vote.

[Keystone19]

He won that nights debate, he didnt need to argue, and since then he has held himself well against his opponents, watch tonights debate.
I dont think that respecting women makes you a chavanistic pig either, personally I would not act in a way such as Helen Clarke did to a woman or a man for that matter.
And besides Helen Clarke is not a woman, she is a man in a womans clothing this is obvious

Respecting women is one thing, a completely condescending approach is something entirely different.

Helen Clark has achieved more for the majority of people in this country in the last six years then the national party has ever achieved. Voting for national will mean the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. National's past track record on health and social welfare is appalling and resulted in sending a large number of people below the relative poverty line. As far as I am concerned every person in this country has the right to food, shelter and warmth. Until the national party and Don Brash demonstrate some commitment to ensuring a minimum standard of health then I am afraid I will remain a left wing supporter.

[Keystone19]

How was he supposed know she was a women! :D

-Indy

Because the Women's Weekly says so and I believe he is an avid reader...

[Wolf]

I have alot to say on this, best I shut up now before I piss some of you off
Dude, you're as entitled to your opinion as anyone. If people choose to get pissed off because you disagree with them, that's their look-out.

FWIW, I didn't say Uncle Helen was any better or had more integrity. In fact, my lack of respect for Don Brash also applies to Helen Clarke, for pretty much the same reason: I detest liars.

I do disagree with you over the issues with the Queen and the USA - as a Republican, I have no time for the Monarchy (except for historical interest) and Bush deserved to be insulted - he actually deserves to be arrested for War Crimes every bit as much as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden do, IMO.

I also feel that what Helen said on that particular instance is correct - it would not have happened with Al Gore as President.

But, hey, I don't have to like, trust or respect someone to agree with them sometimes - I'm sure that Brash has said a few things that, had I heard them, I would have agreed with him.

Conversely, agreeing with a couple of things someone said does not alter my perception that they demonstrate a lack of integrity - my definition: "Words and deeds in accordance with each other and telling the truth." By my definition, both Brash and Clarke fall seriously short of the mark - but then, they're politicians and therefore morally deficient, once again IMO.

None of the top contenders vying for election have demonstrated integrity to me. In my observation, all have demonstrated an inability to "walk the talk".

YMMV, of course and you have every right to disagree and perceive things differently.

[Zed]

I don't care who you vote for, just as long as you do vote!

If you are eligible to vote and don't vote this weekend then you have no right to complain when the next government passes legislation you don't like! :nono:

[chickenfunkstar]

It looks pretty colse for this election. I wouldn't like to call it. The problem which Don Brash has is that he doesn't (compared to labour) have many potential coalition partners.
As a student about to graduate, i'm gonna be better off then I am now no matter who wins.

[Mr Skid]

Bennificeries are reliant on the state and will vote for that reliance ie vote for labour, as far as Im concerned if you are relaint on the state you should by default loose your right to vote, if you do not contribute to the economy why should your vote influence it ?Good idea. While we're at it can we ban gays, cripples, jews and gypsies from voting?

[Wolf]

I don't care who you vote for, just as long as you do vote!

If you are eligible to vote and don't vote this weekend then you have no right to complain when the next government passes legislation you don't like! :nono:
I disagree on that - I would say that if you vote for the buggers and they pass legislation you don't like you have no right to complain because you helped put them there, but if you don't vote because you don't think any of them are fit to govern, no matter who gets in you have the ability to say "see, told you they were a pack of arseholes".

Democracy is bullshit and will always be so because the parties we have do not accurately reflect the wants of the people. What are our main choices? Labour and National - neither of which can garner even half of the population's support, let alone a clear majority. That's an indication that both are self-serving and totally out of touch with what the people of this country actually want.

I've seen individual policies within ALL parties that I agree with, and policies within those same parties that I disagree with. No one party embodies all the policies I want - and the same is most likely true of every man, woman and child in this country.

Now, Zed, as a Christian, you can't seriously be suggesting I choose the "lesser of two evils" :devil2:

[Wolf]

As a student about to graduate, i'm gonna be better off then I am now no matter who wins.
Assuming they keep their promises. I personally don't trust anything said during an Election year. (Jaded, disillusioned, cynical, 42-year-old, curmudgeonly bastard that I am...)

[Indiana_Jones]

I don't care who you vote for, just as long as you do vote!

If you are eligible to vote and don't vote this weekend then you have no right to complain when the next government passes legislation you don't like! :nono:

Spoken like a true prodigy :woohoo:

-Indy

[Quasievil]

Respecting women is one thing, a completely condescending approach is something entirely different.

Helen Clark has achieved more for the majority of people in this country in the last six years then the national party has ever achieved. Voting for national will mean the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. National's past track record on health and social welfare is appalling and resulted in sending a large number of people below the relative poverty line. As far as I am concerned every person in this country has the right to food, shelter and warmth. Until the national party and Don Brash demonstrate some commitment to ensuring a minimum standard of health then I am afraid I will remain a left wing supporter.

Im not locking horns with you mate ok, Im happy debating stuff, still like you and all that.
Now !
Helen Clarkes Governent has squashed the rights of the majority of people by enforcing the rights of the minority upon them.... for example , the Prostition reforms, the civil Rights bill, the anti smoking legislation, these factors alone stand for Gross social engineering. Thanks to the Labour party, it is now possible for me to own a home in suburbia live next door to a brothel have my ex wife marry a woman while my kid goes to school under a dysfunctional educational qualification system the NCEA (the laughing stock of the world)
if they get in power again, it will be all the above as well as Capital Gains tax, extra 10 cents for petrol per litre next year, a 900 million student debt which will equate to 22500.00 per head of population of debt in 15 years. as well as a society further engineered to enable the minority to take more advantage of the bullshit PC enviroment labour stands for.

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poor I dont agree with, the reason for this is the tax rate will drop to 19 cents in the dollar, 80 % of New Zealanders will get a tax relief, also instant 5c a litre reduction on price for a litre of gas. Also the Labour government encourages and ties the poor to be dependant on the state, this does nothing for the poor THAT makes the poor poor for life. It is no secret that all the benefiveries and students will vote for Labour...... why is that ? the reson is they get a handout, they will vote to keep it.... by that they are dependant and permantley poor.
Every New Zealander has the right to food and shelter and warmth, that can never be comprimised in this country by either party, I would go so far as to say there is no harsh poverty in New Zealand (bold I know) but if youve travelled you will no what I mean.
A vote for the left is a vote to penalize hard working kiwis and a vote to encourage the poor to remain so.

Said all with love Jill

[bungbung]

They will win, unless that big guy is playing, then we may have a chance.

[Quasievil]

Dude, you're as entitled to your opinion as anyone. If people choose to get pissed off because you disagree with them, that's their look-out.

FWIW, I didn't say Uncle Helen was any better or had more integrity. In fact, my lack of respect for Don Brash also applies to Helen Clarke, for pretty much the same reason: I detest liars.

I do disagree with you over the issues with the Queen and the USA - as a Republican, I have no time for the Monarchy (except for historical interest) and Bush deserved to be insulted - he actually deserves to be arrested for War Crimes every bit as much as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden do, IMO.

I also feel that what Helen said on that particular instance is correct - it would not have happened with Al Gore as President.

But, hey, I don't have to like, trust or respect someone to agree with them sometimes - I'm sure that Brash has said a few things that, had I heard them, I would have agreed with him.

Conversely, agreeing with a couple of things someone said does not alter my perception that they demonstrate a lack of integrity - my definition: "Words and deeds in accordance with each other and telling the truth." By my definition, both Brash and Clarke fall seriously short of the mark - but then, they're politicians and therefore morally deficient, once again IMO.

None of the top contenders vying for election have demonstrated integrity to me. In my observation, all have demonstrated an inability to "walk the talk".

YMMV, of course and you have every right to disagree and perceive things differently.

I to am a anti monarchist and pro repbulic nationalist

The point was she is lacking in ability to conduct herself respectfully to other nations and people of importance.
Bush is the terrorist of the world I agree, but USA is a country we must enable trade links with, and that comment was not a enhancing move was it.

[Quasievil]

They will win, unless that big guy is playing, then we may have a chance.

...wtf:clap:

[Wolf]

Bush is the terrorist of the world I agree, but USA is a country we must enable trade links with, and that comment was not a enhancing move was it.
It might help us if Gore ever gets in. :devil2:

[Keystone19]

Im not locking horns with you mate ok, Im happy debating stuff, still like you and all that.
Now !
Helen Clarkes Governent has squashed the rights of the majority of people by enforcing the rights of the minority upon them.... for example , the Prostition reforms, the civil Rights bill, the anti smoking legislation, these factors alone stand for Gross social engineering. Thanks to the Labour party, it is now possible for me to own a home in suburbia live next door to a brothel have my ex wife marry a woman while my kid goes to school under a dysfunctional educational qualification system the NCEA (the laughing stock of the world)
if they get in power again, it will be all the above as well as Capital Gains tax, extra 10 cents for petrol per litre next year, a 900 million student debt which will equate to 22500.00 per head of population of debt in 15 years. as well as a society further engineered to enable the minority to take more advantage of the bullshit PC enviroment labour stands for.

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poor I dont agree with, the reason for this is the tax rate will drop to 19 cents in the dollar, 80 % of New Zealanders will get a tax relief, also instant 5c a litre reduction on price for a litre of gas. Also the Labour government encourages and ties the poor to be dependant on the state, this does nothing for the poor THAT makes the poor poor for life. It is no secret that all the benefiveries and students will vote for Labour...... why is that ? the reson is they get a handout, they will vote to keep it.... by that they are dependant and permantley poor.
Every New Zealander has the right to food and shelter and warmth, that can never be comprimised in this country by either party, I would go so far as to say there is no harsh poverty in New Zealand (bold I know) but if youve travelled you will no what I mean.
A vote for the left is a vote to penalize hard working kiwis and a vote to encourage the poor to remain so.

Said all with love Jill

Me too

Now, what's wrong with owning a home in suburbia, living next door to a brothel having your ex wife marry a woman?

Tax cuts are pure and simple electioneering. Tax cuts only come at the expense of other expenditure - for example health and social spending.
Petrol tax relief - that is definititely political spin

I agree that there are some people who receive benefits inappropriately. However, these people are in the minority. Many people are on benefits due to a range of circumstances that are often historical - often due to poor education for a variety of reasons. Why should we disadvantange people now because of things that have happened in the past. I do think that there needs to be a major reworking of the way the benefit system is structured and I think Labour's policy of a universal benefit will contribute to this. However, this does not change the fundamental principle of social good. Labour has traditionally upheld the philosophical belief that all people in society have the right to participate in society to the best of their ability and will support those who can not. What is the National Party's basic philosophical stance - what do they stand for? They have a bunch of namby pamby policies with no substance. How can we make an educated voting decision on that?

There are two types of poverty - relative and absolute. Absolute poverty exists in New Zealand but is rare because we have a social welfare system that is, on the whole, effective. Relative poverty is rife in this country - this is in relation to the standard of living that the average New Zealander has. Relative poverty will increase along with tax and benefit cuts.

All said in the spirit of lively debate...

:grouphug:

[N4CR]

I think the allblacks are going to win - 23-9!

Oh wait... wrong thread.

[Quasievil]

[QUOTE]
Tax cuts are pure and simple electioneering. Tax cuts only come at the expense of other expenditure - for example health and social spending.
Petrol tax relief - that is definititely political spin


Perhaps yes but National is giving the Tax back to New Zealanders who earned the money in the first place, it beats labours comment "there is no huge surplus to enable tax cuts" but you can have the 67 c tax cut in three years . Only to find once the books were opened there was a mystery 7 Billion dollar surplus... why does the labour government need to run a profit, they arent a corporate company are they ? thats our money! And if Labour are so sympathetic to the health, food and educational issues, whats their excuse ???????? while leaning on a pile of money like that "cant see the problems to much money in the way"
Unfortunetly my dear freind Jill, whom I respect and like, that makes a mockery of your said lefty governments idealogical beliefs.


I agree that there are some people who receive benefits inappropriately. However, these people are in the minority

Not true bennificeries make up a huge percentage of our population

.
Many people are on benefits due to a range of circumstances that are often historical - often due to poor education for a variety of reasons. Why should we disadvantange people now because of things that have happened in the past.

I agree there must be a safety net but we dont we have a drift net, that does not do these people any good does it ? it helping them really giving them a lifestyle handout, we have career bennificeries in NZ 3rd generation ones, do we keep giiving them handouts ? is that helping them is it ?




Labour has traditionally upheld the philosophical belief that all people in society have the right to participate in society to the best of their ability and will support those who can not.


And those that will not



What is the National Party's basic philosophical stance - what do they stand for? They have a bunch of namby pamby policies with no substance. How can we make an educated voting decision on that?


from the website
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment


There are two types of poverty - relative and absolute. Absolute poverty exists in New Zealand but is rare because we have a social welfare system that is, on the whole, effective. Relative poverty is rife in this country - this is in relation to the standard of living that the average New Zealander has. Relative poverty will increase along with tax and benefit cuts .


We have NO absolute poverty by world standards in this country
What we have in New Zealand is a culture of inherant laziness by a large percentage of the population, this is unfortunetly endorsed by the labour party at the cost of hard working New Zealanders like you and me

also all said in the spirit of lively debate...

[Keystone19]

[QUOTE=Keystone19]


Perhaps yes but National is giving the Tax back to New Zealanders who earned the money in the first place, it beats labours comment "there is no huge surplus to enable tax cuts" but you can have the 67 c tax cut in three years . Only to find once the books were opened there was a mystery 7 Billion dollar surplus... why does the labour government need to run a profit, they arent a corporate company are they ? thats our money! And if Labour are so sympathetic to the health, food and educational issues, whats their excuse ???????? while leaning on a pile of money like that "cant see the problems to much money in the way"
Unfortunetly my dear freind Jill, whom I respect and like, that makes a mockery of your said lefty governments idealogical beliefs.



Not true bennificeries make up a huge percentage of our population

.

I agree there must be a safety net but we dont we have a drift net, that does not do these people any good does it ? it helping them really giving them a lifestyle handout, we have career bennificeries in NZ 3rd generation ones, do we keep giiving them handouts ? is that helping them is it ?




And those that will not



from the website
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment

.


We have NO absolute poverty by world standards in this country
What we have in New Zealand is a culture of inherant laziness by a large percentage of the population, this is unfortunetly endorsed by the labour party at the cost of hard working New Zealanders like you and me

also all said in the spirit of lively debate...

Oh shit, ok, you win, I can't figure out how to do that quote thing so I give up. SHow me how to do that quote thing where you can just quote some parts and I'll try again...

[Quasievil]

[QUOTE=Quasievil]

Oh shit, ok, you win, I can't figure out how to do that quote thing so I give up. SHow me how to do that quote thing where you can just quote some parts and I'll try again...

1/ Hit reply to my note
2/ wrap {quote} tags around the selected text (the last icon on the above bottom right ,looks like a cartoon bubble )
3/ [quote] will appear around that selected text
4/ type your response
5/ do again and again

but you dont have to now youve waved the flag, you can just vote National in defeat ?

[Quasievil]

Oh shit

like poos

,
ok, you win

Of course



, I can't figure out how to do that quote thing so I give up

Thats what helen should do

.
SHow me how to do that quote thing where you can just quote some parts and I'll try again

National supporter will help you, just like we will take care of your future

:rofl: :rofl:

[Lou Girardin]

[QUOTE=Keystone19]




from the website
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment
.

Does it occur to you that many of these are mutually exclusive?
National and personal security from small government?
Equal opportunity from competitive enterprise, remember the ECA?
Strong families, caring communities and sustainable development from small government?

[Keystone19]

but you dont have to now youve waved the flag, you can just vote National in defeat ?

No, no, no, I can't. In my last post I was going to right ok, you win, I'll vote ....but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I just can't. I am a left wing socialist, I can't help myself...

[Ixion]

You are all pawns in the hands of the imperialist capitalist warlords and their bourgois puppets.

Vote COMMUNIST.

Free bikes for all proletarians

[Keystone19]

[QUOTE=Keystone19]

[QUOTE]1/ Hit reply to my note

OK


2/ wrap {quote} tags around the selected text (the last icon on the above bottom right ,looks like a cartoon bubble )

think I've got it now


3/ [quote] will appear around that selected text

Will never vote National


4/ type your response

Would vote for Greens first


5/ do again and again



but you dont have to now youve waved the flag, you can just vote National in defeat ?

Will never happen...

[enigma51]

Never say never!

[Lou Girardin]

You are all pawns in the hands of the imperialist capitalist warlords and their bourgois puppets.

Vote COMMUNIST.

Free bikes for all proletarians

A Cossack or Ural for all.
(All party aparatchniks, that is)

[MSTRS]

I am hoping the Nats win. I also hope the swinging voter will stand in front of their ballotpaper and think "I'm sick of being engineered so National get both my ticks (since there is NO viable alternative)". This would mean the National get 50+% and go say 'Yah Boo Sucks' to the rest of the parties.

[Keystone19]

I am hoping the Nats win. I also hope the swinging voter will stand in front of their ballotpaper and think "I'm sick of being engineered so National get both my ticks (since there is NO viable alternative)". This would mean the National get 50+% and go say 'Yah Boo Sucks' to the rest of the parties.

Hah, won't happen. IF national gets in (which they won't) Don Rash will have to form a coalition with ACT and that will mean the nebulous waffling policies that they want to implement won't get passed anyway because they will be too right wing even for national... :rofl: :rofl:

[Lou Girardin]

I am hoping the Nats win. I also hope the swinging voter will stand in front of their ballotpaper and think "I'm sick of being engineered so National get both my ticks (since there is NO viable alternative)". This would mean the National get 50+% and go say 'Yah Boo Sucks' to the rest of the parties.

Don't remember the Muldoon years then?
Democratic dictatorships.

[Quasievil]

[QUOTE=Quasievil]

Does it occur to you that many of these are mutually exclusive?
National and personal security from small government?
Equal opportunity from competitive enterprise, remember the ECA?
Strong families, caring communities and sustainable development from small government?


Im not entirely sure what you mean Lou but I wouldnt say mutually exclusive at all, Policies are generally interactive in some way or another.
I prefer personally to expect bugger all from the government, I prefer freedom of choice and to make decisions myself and be accountable for them and to fund them myself. Im into less government intervention and more personal choice princepally because I can spend my dollar far better than any government can any day of the week. However in saying that in this country we have to many dead beat num skulls and social retards who pride themselves on being social throwbacks, couple that with lefty PC glorification merchants that see a rose in every gutter what chance do the people who want to get ahead have with that related tax take on there pay packets.

Im sick to death of DPB career mothers (yes they exsist), Dole Bludgers and the like who need not be on a welfare but choose to Im also sick to death of the labour party who has and always will enable such leaches to bleed us willingly.

Im also extremely pissed with a government that rates itself as the moral leaders of the country.
Infact Im sick of alot of things, sadly most of my political gripes will never be satisfied, Im prepared for that but I do enjoy venting from time to time, this is one of those occasions.

Nothing personal to anyone we can all have our views and Im happy to hear other views also I kinda enjoy a good debate on this subject though :Punk:

[Quasievil]

Don't remember the Muldoon years then?
Democratic dictatorships.

Yup I remember that, one brand of washing maching, one brand of carpet, government approval for subscribing to a foreign magazine, luckily a different era and far from what we have now. Thanks to the business round table and rodgernomices

[Keystone19]

Im sick to death of DPB career mothers (yes they exsist), Dole Bludgers and the like who need not be on a welfare but choose to Im also sick to death of the labour party who has and always will enable such leaches to bleed us willingly.


Ok, can't let this one slide on by...

No doubt there are some people who choose to remain on the DPB unnecessarily (please note that you do not have to be a mother to be on the DPB, fathers are also users of this form of welfare), however, until the government - national or labour) can come up with decent childcare, decent pay rates for women, and decent after school care for children, then for many people there is no choice but to go on the DPB. And thank God we have it because if we didn't then where would our kids be?

[Keystone19]

Yup I remember that, one brand of washing maching, one brand of carpet, government approval for subscribing to a foreign magazine, luckily a different era and far from what we have now. Thanks to the business round table and rodgernomices

But still national. Their basic philosophy has not changed...

[Ixion]

Ok, can't let this one slide on by...

No doubt there are some people who choose to remain on the DPB unnecessarily (please note that you do not have to be a mother to be on the DPB, fathers are also users of this form of welfare), however, until the government - national or labour) can come up with decent childcare, decent pay rates for women, and decent after school care for children, then for many people there is no choice but to go on the DPB. And thank God we have it because if we didn't then where would our kids be?

Hm. Wife's great aunt lost her husband (illness) with 4 young children.

Back before there was a DPB. Or any other sort of welfare (except the old age pension I think).

She didn't have a lot of choices. Just rolled her sleeves up and got on with it.

No childcare at all. No after school care for children. No DPB.And no equal pay then : women DID get lower pay than men then - there were two pay rates for a lot of jobs - one for women, higher one for men.

Just hard yacker. Year after year.

Where are those kids now? Pretty well. Everyone of them a good citizen, good jobs, stable married lives, grandkids with University education. Maybe they're where they are because they didn't grow up with a "don't have to work, you're entitled " message?

Closer to today, I know a woman, with kid. She works three jobs, all part time, maybe 60 hours a week all up.Makes less from them after tax and travel expenses than she would get on the DPB. She was on it (DPB) for a while - threw it in , says she didn't 't respect herself .

So yeah, there is a choice.

On t'other hand, I wouldn't want to see women have to go through that Mrs Ixion's great aunt did nowdays. Trouble with any scheme that decent people devise to help those who genuinely deserve help, is that it gets taken over by the leeches. And like as not the people who deserve the help end up missing out anyway.

[Lias]

Hah, won't happen. IF national gets in (which they won't) Don Rash will have to form a coalition with ACT and that will mean the nebulous waffling policies that they want to implement won't get passed anyway because they will be too right wing even for national... :rofl: :rofl:
You are right about one thing at least, national are far too centre-right.

I'm still voting for them however, because the Direct Democrats have a snowballs chance. What NZ really needs is a real right wing party, not the marginally right of centre party that is National.

Things I want to see in my lifetime, but never will under Labour OR National:

Compulsory reacqusition of all former state owned enterprises.
Re-introduction of trade sanctions and subsidies to protect local business.
Strict immigration, only allowing immigrants who speak excellent english, and the elimination of "chain imigration"
Hard labour instead of jailtime ("Prisons" should turn profits, not be a drain on the taxpayer, and anyone who has commited a crime so heinous they are not suitable for a labour scheme should be executed.)
Abolition of defense lawyers.
Strict time limits on welfare benefits (6 months for the dole, better systems in place to ensure mothers on the DPB return to the workforce etc)
Return to full membership of the ANZUS treaty, and increased defense spending to allow us to be a genuine military ally to Australia.
Abolition of the Nuclear ban, and active development of nuclear power in NZ
Replacement of the Treaty of Waitangi with a constitution giving equal rights to all NZ'ers
Relaxtion of firearms laws, and a constitutionally guaranteed right to use lethal force in the defense of property. (No more prosecuting farmers for shooting thieving fuckwits!)
Constitutional right to free speech, ensuring the wording precludes any "Hate Speech" type thought control ever being introduced to law.

Sadly thou we have too many scum sucking lefites in this once-beautiful nation of ours, and I think its far more likely were just going to turn into a cesspool of welfare dependant crims :(

[Lou Girardin]

I thought it was clear.
You expect a Government to provide things that a small government can't.
The Louisiana floods are a prime example.
Bush is a proponent of small government, so he cuts funding to projects designed to protect against flooding. The result has been obvious.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.

[Charlie]

I see National having a more 'general' appeal and focus in their policies.
I'm personally sick of all the specialist treatment and I think alot of ordinary kiwis just want a fair system. No insane benefits if you fall into a particular ethnic group, no tax benefits just because you have (and are of age to have) kids, and whats up with medical cards for young and old, do people 25-50 not get sick?????? :puke:
We all pay a percentage of taxes on what we earn so it doesnt require a rocket scientist to see you pay more if you earn more, so why if your earn above a certain amount you pay more on more???
Although I agree that there needs to be a better system for making it easier to keep at least 1 parent home with young kids; TV and daycare are no replacement for family. :hitcher:

Still nothing like politics and seeing grown men and women act so childishly!

[The Stranger]

Ok, can't let this one slide on by...

No doubt there are some people who choose to remain on the DPB unnecessarily (please note that you do not have to be a mother to be on the DPB, fathers are also users of this form of welfare), however, until the government - national or labour) can come up with decent childcare, decent pay rates for women, and decent after school care for children, then for many people there is no choice but to go on the DPB. And thank God we have it because if we didn't then where would our kids be?

From my reading of quasi's posts he is not advocating stopping these things altogether, only removing them from those that don't require them as opposed to those whom simply find them more convenient. There really is a huge difference.

My eldest daughter used to bring home neighbourhood strays all the time. Sometimes we would have upto 3 extra kids living with us for various periods over several years. That was until the last one, whom it turned out was simply here because his mother could not get more money from the govt because he was too old. He had one 14 yr brother and she didn't work, never had.
But her answer was to get more money from the govt or get rid of her son instead to someone whom "could afford it".
Incidently it took me a lot of work to actually get this guy to understand that he had to get a job or get out, he had spent a lot of time trying to get money to live from the government too.
Quite simply he had never seen anyone work and had no idea that he had to or why he should.

[Charlie]

So yeah, there is a choice.

On t'other hand, I wouldn't want to see women have to go through that Mrs Ixion's great aunt did nowdays. Trouble with any scheme that decent people devise to help those who genuinely deserve help, is that it gets taken over by the leeches. And like as not the people who deserve the help end up missing out anyway.
I like your theory and thinking.... :clap:

[Ixion]

You are right about one thing at least, national are far too centre-right.

I'm still voting for them however, because the Direct Democrats have a snowballs chance. What NZ really needs is a real right wing party, not the marginally right of centre party that is National.

Things I want to see in my lifetime, but never will under Labour OR National:

Compulsory reacqusition of all former state owned enterprises.
Re-introduction of trade sanctions and subsidies to protect local business.
Strict immigration, only allowing immigrants who speak excellent english, and the elimination of "chain imigration"
Hard labour instead of jailtime ("Prisons" should turn profits, not be a drain on the taxpayer, and anyone who has commited a crime so heinous they are not suitable for a labour scheme should be executed.)
Abolition of defense lawyers.
Strict time limits on welfare benefits (6 months for the dole, better systems in place to ensure mothers on the DPB return to the workforce etc)
Return to full membership of the ANZUS treaty, and increased defense spending to allow us to be a genuine military ally to Australia.
Abolition of the Nuclear ban, and active development of nuclear power in NZ
Replacement of the Treaty of Waitangi with a constitution giving equal rights to all NZ'ers
Relaxtion of firearms laws, and a constitutionally guaranteed right to use lethal force in the defense of property. (No more prosecuting farmers for shooting thieving fuckwits!)
Constitutional right to free speech, ensuring the wording precludes any "Hate Speech" type thought control ever being introduced to law.

Sadly thou we have too many scum sucking lefites in this once-beautiful nation of ours, and I think its far more likely were just going to turn into a cesspool of welfare dependant crims :(


A fellow traveller :woohoo: Vote COMMUNIST comrade.

[Keystone19]

Closer to today, I know a woman, with kid. She works three jobs, all part time, maybe 60 hours a week all up.Makes less from them after tax and travel expenses than she would get on the DPB. She was on it (DPB) for a while - threw it in , says she didn't 't respect herself .

So yeah, there is a choice.

On t'other hand, I wouldn't want to see women have to go through that Mrs Ixion's great aunt did nowdays. Trouble with any scheme that decent people devise to help those who genuinely deserve help, is that it gets taken over by the leeches. And like as not the people who deserve the help end up missing out anyway.

I think the great thing about the system we currently have is that there is a fall back position. At least with the DPB there is a choice. For example, if your kids need you at home (and many do for a bunch of reasons) you can be there for them. Some of us are lucky and make the life choices that leave us in a position not to ever need the state for assistance, but many do not make the right choices or are unable to. There are a bunch of ways to support these people and benefits are just one of them. Sure, we need to work on some of the other options, but at least there is a commitment from Labour to do that.

[Motu]

National won't be strong again until they have a strong leader,all the National members with guts jumped ship years ago.Like MikeL,I reckon if Brash gets in the knife will slip in easily and he'll be out soon as his promises crumble.

[Wolf]

A fellow traveller :woohoo: Vote COMMUNIST comrade.
Well, Lias did score pretty close to Stalin's position on the political compass...

[Keystone19]

From my reading of quasi's posts he is not advocating stopping these things altogether, only removing them from those that don't require them as opposed to those whom simply find them more convenient. There really is a huge difference.

My eldest daughter used to bring home neighbourhood strays all the time. Sometimes we would have upto 3 extra kids living with us for various periods over several years. That was until the last one, whom it turned out was simply here because his mother could not get more money from the govt because he was too old. He had one 14 yr brother and she didn't work, never had.
But her answer was to get more money from the govt or get rid of her son instead to someone whom "could afford it".
Incidently it took me a lot of work to actually get this guy to understand that he had to get a job or get out, he had spent a lot of time trying to get money to live from the government too.
Quite simply he had never seen anyone work and had no idea that he had to or why he should.

Yeah, there's heaps of examples and we always hear the bad ones. But of all the bad stories, there's another 500 good stories. Bet ya didn't know your neighbour was on the DPB did ya...

[kerryg]

I thought it was clear.
You expect a Government to provide things that a small government can't.
The Louisiana floods are a prime example.
Bush is a proponent of small government, so he cuts funding to projects designed to protect against flooding. The result has been obvious.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.


Absolutely am not promoting/supporting any particular political point of view with this question but does " small government" really mean fewer public servants (eg policemen, firemen, nurses etc etc)? I was under the impression that Brash's intention is to deal with waste in the public sector and that is something different, isn't it? Fewer pen-pushers, not fewer cops?

[Phurrball]

Firstly, this is a blardy interesting election all right - there's a lot riding on it.

It's too close to call IMHO, I think it'll all come down to which minor parties are at the table...

The most disturbing aspect of this election is the uber-spin, dirty tactics and apparent bidding war on ALL sides of the spectrum.

Personally, I think that if national win, and carry out their 'policies' such as abolishing Maori seats and the oh-so-pithy 'one law for all' agenda [Remembering that many of us are here as Tangata Tiriti according to a contract between the crown and Maori] they will be shooting themselves in the foot in the long term as Maori are increasing as a percentage of the population.

On the policy front - does national actually have any precisely worded policy? or is it all vague cr*p able to be summarised in light-on-words Tui style billboards? For example - housing policy = less than 2 pages, communications policy - alleged to be less than 100 words making no mention of local loop unbundling or cellphone termination charges...the nats spokespeople - including the 'big guns' come across appallingly in interviews WRT detail.

I have no real issue with tax cuts - that is a typical right wing economic ideology (which differs from my own), and is merely a different way of doing things at the end of the day. The REAL issue is national's other policy - or lack thereof. How many times have we heard a national spokesperson say when pressed in an interview "We'll review it"? Where is the detail in what the nats will actually do? Or is it all pithy soundbites that will lure swinging voters into signing a blank cheque for an ill-defined agenda?

Labour ain't perfect...but at least they're pretty clear on what they will actually do. All this talk of 'social engineering' and 'PC' gone-over-the-top is mere spin - ask anyone to actually DEFINE what these things ARE, and see them struggle.

I detest this dumbing down into vague soundbites! [can you tell]

I've already voted...as I'm jumping on a plane to the South Island :love: tonight.

Personally, there's a huge amount riding on this for me. My fiancee and I are on the bones of our arse as we try and better ourselves through study.

(yes - we did weasel our way into a cool bike though!)

Who has tried to LIVE on $150 student loan living costs in Auckland? How many right wing politicians could survive themselves on the benefits they plan to cut (and pay market rents)? Now THERE'S a reality show I'd actually watch! It's a bad joke. I do too much part time work and it hurts my studies.

When are we ever going to be able to afford a house? or start a family? I imagine that the politicos would like to be portrayed as encouraging people such as my fiancee and I to stay in the country, contribute to the knowledge economy (whatever that is), pay our taxes and start a family...Like fark any of that will happen for the longest time if a centre right government gets in.

Should there be a centre right government, I would be looking at taking my degrees and expertise elsewhere (and the tax I would pay) to get ahead. I don't want to. I want to stay in this country I call home. I want to buy a house and start a family and ride my bike through our fantastic landscapes. I don't think I'm being greedy - the millstone around my neck is just too large - it's strangling me before I've even started out in life.

Farking barstards that set up the student loan scheme after receiving a free education themselves...[Don't get me wrong - I believe in contributing something, as I do benefit from my years at university. The current system is way out of hand though...]

(Boy! That turned into an emotive rant!)

:grouphug: Much love KBers...

Oh yeah - the essential choice we face is between bureaucrats and plutocrats. Do we want to employ people in the state sector to do things? Or do we want expensive consultants paid to do the same? Hmmm...makes one think doesn't it...

[mouldy]

I agree. National will win. Most people won't look beyond the tax cuts. I actually feel a bit sorry for Don Brash. Six or nine months on, when it all turns to custard, who will get the blame? I doubt that by then he will have the political savvy to avoid the knife in the back.
sad but true. But basic maths tell me that if you have to borrow to fund tax cuts it will force up interest rates hence any money Don gives me back the bank will take back off me as my mortgage costs more.

[Charlie]

National won't be strong again until they have a strong leader,all the National members with guts jumped ship years ago.Like MikeL,I reckon if Brash gets in the knife will slip in easily and he'll be out soon as his promises crumble.
No government party is ever going to please everyone. But your right, there are a lot of softies in there; actually softies everywhere. Few of these posts talk about how it once was, and how the issues have changed. Now I'm not that old, but even 15-20 years ago as a kid I noticed people were tougher, and prouder. There wasnt all this Political Correctness, fear of offending someone for saying it how it is or standing up for what you value. People voted for prosperity and economic growth for business, not for which party will hand out the most freebees.
Infact I'm sure I am happy, healthy and stronger today for all the things I put in my mouth as a child that I shouldnt have, all the accidents I had because OSH hadnt stepped in to protect me, and because my parents taught me you make it through the bad times because thats just what you have to do!

[Lou Girardin]

Absolutely am not promoting/supporting any particular political point of view with this question but does " small government" really mean fewer public servants (eg policemen, firemen, nurses etc etc)? I was under the impression that Brash's intention is to deal with waste in the public sector and that is something different, isn't it? Fewer pen-pushers, not fewer cops?

The Libertarian idea is the bare minimum of Government interference.
Of course "bare minmum" and "interference" are open to interpretation.
You've probably guessed that I detest ACT and all they stand for.
Brash is ACT in drag.
Check out some of his speeches, before he joined the Nats.
If the Nats win, the best we can hope for is that Winnie reins in their more extreme policies as he did to Bolgers crew.

[eliot-ness]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.

You've got it spot on there Lou. Muldoon got into power in 1975 with his givaway program. Scrapped the Labour superannuation scheme and handed back all the money paid in. Said the government would always be able to fund it. Then he brought out the employee tax to raise unemployment and hold wages down. Next he started borrowing heavily to fund Nats givaway policies, each year borrowing more to pay back the previous years debts. Interest rates rose to 18%. Unemployment to over 200,000. By the time he was kicked out the country was virtually bankrupt. Douglas and Prebble were the architects of the next Labour governments policies. Easy money for the asset strippers meant hundreds of businesses were taken over and closed down, simply because their assets were worth more short term than their profits were long term. Easy pickings for people who had no interest in manufacturing.
These faceless groups became Jim Bolgers heroes. self made men who had risen to the top on there own initiative. A couple of years later many of the were in jail for fraud. Next came the superannuation fiasco. Enforced saving would be the only way for the future but the national government wouldn't underwrite the insurance companies. Many of them collapsed leaving contributors with nothing. The health system virtually broke down. Not enough money to fund it. Education suffered the same fate. Once again National tried to borrow itself out of trouble.
Now we have Don Brash. "The country can afford tax cuts. Labour has a 7 billion dollar surplus. Lets give it away". What happens after the first year???
Less taxes coming in. interest rates rising. "We can borrow the money" says the intrepid Mr Brash. Of course there is always the Labour super fund which he has already promised to scrap and use the money to repay debt.
Bringing in nuclear ships should help us trade with America, but how much trade did we have before that policy was introduced??
So, we're faced with another term of Labour's policies, which, difficult as they may seem, resulted in a surplus. Or, we can have the short term gravy train promised by National and pay for it later. Hard choice.

[Hitcher]

I suspect that the Nats may get a bit of a fright on Saturday night. Next election is the one to win, not this one. I think they may have done too much...

[Oscar]

Helen Clark has achieved more for the majority of people in this country in the last six years then the national party has ever achieved.

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

[Quasievil]

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

That is very correct, well said

[enigma51]

I suspect that the Nats may get a bit of a fright on Saturday night. Next election is the one to win, not this one. I think they may have done too much...
Explain why you think next election is more important

[Keystone19]

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

Please note that the National government cannot take any credit for those reforms. It was the Labour government under Lange who instigated them.

[Big Dave]

Hmmm - election, that's with the crosses on the boxes isn't it. - who is the current Govt again - is Helen 'Nat' or 'Lab'? (serious - it's not on sky sport or UK TV)

(Lucky you don't have a 'Country Party' like they do back home - the abbreviation is a killer)

[Quasievil]

Please note that the National government cannot take any credit for those reforms. It was the Labour government under Lange who instigated them.

Under direct pressure from Rodger Douglas who formed the ACT party which is right wing like National. Labour cannot take the credit it was right wing political ideals that did it

[MacD]

Under direct pressure from Rodger Douglas who formed the ACT party which is right wing like National. Labour cannot take the credit it was right wing political ideals that did it

It was nothing to do with Roger Douglas. NZ was essentially bankrupt and our government was under instructions from the World Bank / IMF. The alternative was to follow the Argentinian path and default on our loans.

While 80% of tax payers are claimed get a tax break under National, 50% of full-time earners will get $15 per week or less*. That will be very quickly soaked up by the interest rate increases that will result from the inflationary effects of the tax breaks.

If Brash was still Govenor of the Reserve Bank he'd be squealing like a stuck pig about National's plans.

My prediction is that National will win and then use NZ First as the fall-guy for why they can't actually fulfil their election promises.

*source (http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/article695.html)

[Quasievil]

It was nothing to do with Roger Douglas. NZ was essentially bankrupt and our government was under instructions from the World Bank / IMF. The alternative was to follow the Argentinian path and default on our loans.

While 80% of tax payers will get a tax break under National, 50% of tax payers will get about $10 per week. That will be very quickly soaked up by the interest rate increases that will result from the inflationary effects of the tax breaks.

If Brash was still Govenor of the Reserve Bank he'd be squealing like a stuck pig about National's plans.

My prediction is that National will win and then use NZ First as the fall-guy for why they can't actually fulfil their election promises.


Excuse me ? new zealands economic reforms had everything to do with Rodger Douglas, have you heard of rodgernomics where do you think that came from ?

[MacD]

Excuse me ? new zealands economic reforms had everything to do with Rodger Douglas, have you heard of rodgernomics where do you think that came from ?

Roger Douglas was the Finance Minister at the time of a severe financial crisis. That is not the same as saying the reforms were his idea. Rogernomics was a term coined by the media to personify an economic theory (Monetarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism)) as applied to NZ. Douglas was following a process of reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_adjustment_program) as mandated by the IMF. The NZ Labour Party had little choice but to follow this path given the country's financial state following the Muldoon years.

[Quasievil]

Roger Douglas was the Finance Minister at the time of a severe financial crisis. That is not the same as saying the reforms were his idea. Rogernomics was a term coined by the media to personify an economic theory (Monetarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism)) as applied to NZ. Douglas was following a process of reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_adjustment_program) as mandated by the IMF. The NZ Labour Party had little choice but to follow this path given the country's financial state following the Muldoon years.

Yes thats right he lead the economic reforms and was voted Best Financal minister by euro money magazine for his efforts. Alot of the ideas were written about in his 1980 "there has got to be a better way"
So when I say he lead the way, I believe that largley he did. He was an economic revolutionary which certainly aided NZ towards the reforms of the 1980's particulary 1984-1980 period

[Hitcher]

Explain why you think next election is more important
Economic indicators are starting to trend the wrong way. The next three years will be hard work for whichever party wins this Saturday. By comparison, the winner in 2008 will ride the crest of a wave.

[Mr Skid]

I prefer freedom of choice and to make decisions myself Like the freedom of having a handly neighbourhood brothel? Or the freedom to marry a person of the same gender?

Sounds good - Labour, supporting the individuals right to choice :D

If you want to vote for a right wing party that supports freedom of choice, don't piss about with National. They're probably the most socially conservative party, bar Destiny New Zealand.

I'd suggest there guys:

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

At least they've got a consistent political ideology underpinning their policies.

[MacD]

Yes thats right he lead the economic reforms and was voted Best Financal minister by euro money magazine for his efforts. Alot of the ideas were written about in his 1980 "there has got to be a better way"
So when I say he lead the way, I believe that largley he did. He was an economic revolutionary which certainly aided NZ towards the reforms of the 1980's particulary 1984-1980 period

And I believe he was following the economic orthodoxy (of the time) in a particularly unquestioning way. If NZ's approach was so revolutionary why was the outcome less successful than the more "conservative" economic approach taken by Australia during the same period?

[MacD]

Yes thats right he lead the economic reforms and was voted Best Financal minister by euro money magazine for his efforts.

The Fiat Panda was voted Car of the Year in 2004, but it doesn't mean you'd go out and buy one on Saturday...

[Quasievil]

And I believe he was following the economic orthodoxy (of the time) in a particularly unquestioning way. If NZ's approach was so revolutionary why was the outcome less successful than the more "conservative" economic approach taken by Australia during the same period?

Big question that one lots of reasons, will think about it mate

[Lou Girardin]

And I believe he was following the economic orthodoxy (of the time) in a particularly unquestioning way. If NZ's approach was so revolutionary why was the outcome less successful than the more "conservative" economic approach taken by Australia during the same period?

That's dead right, but we were the darlings of the world economists. We were so brave in our reforms. We were going to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific. But no-one else followed.
Then 1987 happened.
Why is New Zealand so extremist?
Is it because we're so apathetic that we elect a Government then fall asleep for 3 years?

[Oscar]

Please note that the National government cannot take any credit for those reforms. It was the Labour government under Lange who instigated them.


Depends on your point of view.
I'd say a balanced summary would say that the Lange Govt. reformed the economy but lacked the will to take on social welfare and the unions.
Ruth Richardson finished what Douglas started.

[Keystone19]

Depends on your point of view.
I'd say a balanced summary would say that the Lange Govt. reformed the economy but lacked the will to take on social welfare and the unions.
Ruth Richardson finished what Douglas started.

Possibly, that's the trouble with a three year term though. Governments do not have time to enact all their policies. Under MMP we should have a four year term.

[Oscar]

It was nothing to do with Roger Douglas. NZ was essentially bankrupt and our government was under instructions from the World Bank / IMF. The alternative was to follow the Argentinian path and default on our loans.

While 80% of tax payers will get a tax break under National, 50% of tax payers will get about $10 per week. That will be very quickly soaked up by the interest rate increases that will result from the inflationary effects of the tax breaks.

If Brash was still Govenor of the Reserve Bank he'd be squealing like a stuck pig about National's plans.

My prediction is that National will win and then use NZ First as the fall-guy for why they can't actually fulfil their election promises.

I'm sorry to inform you that yer getting interest increases whoever wins the election.

[MikeL]

I'm sorry, I just could not let this pass.
Whatever has been achieved over the last six years is down to economic growth, and for the Labour Govt. to take credit for the economy (which it has been doing) over the last six years is stupid.

Economic growth in NZ is due to the reforms in the late eighties and early ninties (by both Labour & National), but mainly the World economy. During the last six years we could have had a monkey as finance minister and nothing would have changed.

And I can't let your comment pass. The original opinion was that Helen Clark had done more for the majority of the people in this country...
You automatically assume that the only benefit is economic and then deny Labour the credit for even that. There is more to government than economics (the dismal science). However much some of you people view Labour's social policies with distaste, the fact is that no national government has dared to provide leadership in social issues the way Labour has. You may think they have gone too far, but the fact remains that they have at least had principles rather than cynical pragmatism.

[Oscar]

Possibly, that's the trouble with a three year term though. Governments do not have time to enact all their policies. Under MMP we should have a four year term.

The second Labour Govt. had two terms. It was not a matter of time, it was a matter of guts. Whereas the Lange Govt. had no problem reforming financial markets, farming and the state sector, they would not touch social welfare and unions.

[Keystone19]

The second Labour Govt. had two terms. It was not a matter of time, it was a matter of guts. Whereas the Lange Govt. had no problem reforming financial markets, farming and the state sector, they would not touch social welfare and unions.

Well they couldn't do everything then could they. This time around they have completely reworked the health system and, damn it, it's working.

[Oscar]

And I can't let your comment pass. The original opinion was that Helen Clark had done more for the majority of the people in this country...
You automatically assume that the only benefit is economic and then deny Labour the credit for even that. There is more to government than economics (the dismal science). However much some of you people view Labour's social policies with distate, the fact is that no national government has dared to provide leadership in social issues the way Labour has. You may think they have gone too far, but the fact remains that they have at least had principles rather than cynical pragmatism.


Bullshit. Ruth Richardson provided leadership in the area of social policy - she started to disassemble the social welfare monster that was strangling so many aspects of this country.

Actually, I would love to hear what the labour govt did to benefit the economy over the last six years. Please tell us.

[Hitcher]

Possibly, that's the trouble with a three year term though. Governments do not have time to enact all their policies. Under MMP we should have a four year term.
Piss off. MMP is a political system designed to play both ends off against the other, whatever those ends may be. It was designed to stop the Nazis being re-elected in Germany after WWII and, on that score at least, has been spectacularly successful. As proportional representation systems go, it is fundamentally flawed and can lead to perverse outcomes. The STV system, as now used for local government elections and in other states around the world, is much "fairer".

MMP can result in a process where coalitions or other accommodations have to be forged after election night to produce a government. An outcome of this can be manifestos and party election promises being torched and a policy agenda introduced for which nobody voted. Hardly democratic. Three years of such putridity is too much without getting all misty-eyed and proposing four years.

Personally I am attracted to a "to-the-victor-the-spoils" system. At least it generally provides a result with a mandate to govern.

[Keystone19]

The STV system, as now used for local government elections and in other states around the world, is much "fairer".

Actually I agree. STV would be a much fairer system and it's a shame people didn't understand it wnough at the time of the referendum. MMP would work better with a four year term though and this most recent government has actually made it work pretty well.

[MSTRS]

Piss off. MMP is a political system designed to play both ends off against the other, whatever those ends may be.

Personally I am attracted to a "to-the-victor-the-spoils" system. At least it generally provides a result with a mandate to govern.
:clap: See post #52

[Oscar]

Explain why you think next election is more important

Because the economy is about to tank.
Whoever is at the wheel will get the blame.

[The Stranger]

You seem to come back to the DPB all the time.
Take off your DPB blinkers and red sunglasses for a moment.

Do you have any evidence to back up the 500 to 1 assertion?
I strongly feel that this is the main difference between our points of view.

I do care about others and am prepared to put my money where my mouth is.
Although we did try and get some assistance from the govt to help out when we had kids living here which for example their parent had tried unsuccessfully to get them adopted out, but were unable to as they were too old and no one would take them. The hoops we would have had to jump through were huge. So as to avoid stress on the kids and/or parents we simply paid up and shut up.

So you are obviously compassionate, and I believe that I am compassionate. So what is the difference between us?

Why are we passionately opposed to each other's point of view when we want the same thing?

Do you want to support people who's career is to live from govt hand outs and for whom this is the only way they know how?

Do you accept that they exist?

Well they do, I have seen it on more than one occasion.
We have had people go back on the dole rather than dig footings by hand. It was good enough for the 57yr old MD to do it, he would never ask someone to do something he wouldn't, But too hard for a young guy to do. Actually went through 3 young apparently fit able guys in 2 weeks before hiring a 45yr old whom stuck it out. Hey the dole is much easier. The old guy had one advantage, he had been taught/learned how to work hard, the young guys had not, who was there to teach them this valuable lesson?

This is an example of the type of dependency cycle I would like to see broken.
I do not want to smash down support for those unable to take care of themselves for whatever reason that be.

[Lias]

Like the freedom of having a handly neighbourhood brothel? Or the freedom to marry a person of the same gender?

Sounds good - Labour, supporting the individuals right to choice

Whats next.. The Freedom to have sex with an animal? the freedom to have sex with children? The freedom to murder who you want? the freedom to rape who you want? The freedom to steal what I want?

Civilizations always have a basic set of moral values that their legal systems are based on. What labour has been doing is steadily trying to errode what have been basic tennets of our moral values in the name of "personal freedom. By changing the legal system, they hope that with the general apathy of most voters, these changes will eventually sink back into the moral fibre of the country.

Now to sum up with a funny before I go postal and kill all the labour supporters:

A teenage girl was about to finish her first year of university. She considered herself to be a very liberal Labour supporter, and her father was a rather staunch National supporter..
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to programs like welfare.
He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 90% pass rate, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless because of all the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many university friends because of all her studying.
He then asked how her friend Mary, who was attending the same university, was doing.
She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 50% pass rate, never studied, was very popular on campus, went to parties all the time and often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
The father then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Chancellor's office and ask to take 20% off her 90% and give it to her friend that had only 50%. That way they would both have a 70% pass rate.
The daughter fired back and said "that wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and my friend has done nothing."
The father smiled and said: "Welcome to the National Party."

[Mr Skid]

Whats next.. The Freedom to have sex with an animal? the freedom to have sex with children? The freedom to murder who you want? the freedom to rape who you want? The freedom to steal what I want?Choice, I thought I wasn't going to get a bite from that!

Anyway, either you're being disingenuous in your reply, or you don't know what your talking about.

I'm not sure which one though. Can you give me a hint?

[Lou Girardin]

Bullshit. Ruth Richardson provided leadership in the area of social policy - she started to disassemble the social welfare monster that was strangling so many aspects of this country.

Actually, I would love to hear what the labour govt did to benefit the economy over the last six years. Please tell us.

Ruth Richardson - leadership? Don't make me laugh.
That cow had bile in her veins.
Are you too young to recall the recession that her benefit cuts and other economic policies dropped us into?

[Oscar]

Ruth Richardson - leadership? Don't make me laugh.
That cow had bile in her veins.
Are you too young to recall the recession that her benefit cuts and other economic policies dropped us into?


Here we go again.
You can no more blame Richardson for that recession than give Labour the credit for economic growth. NZ is a small bit of economic flotsam floating in a big world.

Her benefit cuts were long overdue - she did what previous Governments didn't have the guts to do. That is leadership.

[Pixie]

I don't think we'll know on Saturday or even Sunday for that matter. Depends who gets the most seats out of the Greens or the Maori Party. Either one could go with National.................yes that's what I said. The way Brash has been trying to buy his way into power he is just as likely to scrap Nationals 'one people' policy to become PM.

But since you asked I'd still go with Labour and the status quo. :violin:

Skyryder
National follows a policy that is expected of them.
Labour says there is no money, yet finds some to respond to Nationals policies.
And you say National buys votes and I assume Labour doesn't??? :weird: :weird: :weird:

[Pixie]

Give me the knife - I'd happily stick it into the lying snivelling little bastard. He's weak, stupid and resorts to filthy tactics then lies about his involvement.

He's also two-faced says one thing to a person's face then another behind their back - vis. that crap at the Wananga in Te Awamutu the other day. Says complimentary things to them after they've invited him in and then slams them when he's outside and completely retracts what he told them.

Kinda like his 180-degree on the matter of the smear campaign, isn't it.

The man has no integrity and when he finally is consigned to the political scrap-heap he will thoroughly deserve it. Wish it would happen today.
Lets vote for Abraham "I cannot tell a Lie" Clark

[Pixie]

Respecting women is one thing, a completely condescending approach is something entirely different.

Helen Clark has achieved more for the majority of people in this country in the last six years then the national party has ever achieved. Voting for national will mean the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. National's past track record on health and social welfare is appalling and resulted in sending a large number of people below the relative poverty line. As far as I am concerned every person in this country has the right to food, shelter and warmth. Until the national party and Don Brash demonstrate some commitment to ensuring a minimum standard of health then I am afraid I will remain a left wing supporter.
The poor should get poorer.Make them get off their arses!

In capitalism Man exploits Man
In Socialism it's the opposite

[Pixie]

I don't care who you vote for, just as long as you do vote!

If you are eligible to vote and don't vote this weekend then you have no right to complain when the next government passes legislation you don't like! :nono:
That's an original comment.
Since when did not voting mean you couldn't complain?

[Pixie]

Socialists want to trap the poor into welfare.It insures they will always have a strong vote at every election

[Pixie]

I thought it was clear.
You expect a Government to provide things that a small government can't.
The Louisiana floods are a prime example.
Bush is a proponent of small government, so he cuts funding to projects designed to protect against flooding. The result has been obvious.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If Brash truly gets his way, you'll need your tax cuts to pay for medical insurance, private security for your home, super scheme, because you won't even get the scraps they throw us now.
And pray to whatever Gods you believe in that you won't be made redundant under their 'flexible' employment law.
Because good ACT acolytes like Brash believe that unemployment is a useful economic tool to drive down wages.
Vote left Lou.And just before you put the ballot paper in the slot,use it to wave good bye to that $4000 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Pixie]

Yeah, there's heaps of examples and we always hear the bad ones. But of all the bad stories, there's another 500 good stories. Bet ya didn't know your neighbour was on the DPB did ya...
What's a good welfare story?
"I was on it for $40 years and my arse grew to the size of an elephant"?

[Pixie]

Explain why you think next election is more important
Because if labour get back in this election, by then we will be really in the shit

[Wolf]

Lets vote for Abraham "I cannot tell a Lie" Clark
Several posts too late, mate - That point of Uncle Helen's duplicity has already been raised as a counter argument to mine and I have already answered that I have no respect for her lack of integrity either.

I don't like or respect liars. As politicians are given to lying, I have no respect for any of them.

And, unlike Zed, I cannot bring myself to choose any form of "evil", whether lesser or greater (sorry, Zed, all in good fun...)

[Pixie]

I'm sorry to inform you that yer getting interest increases whoever wins the election.
Great! I have no debt and lots of investments :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Lou Girardin]

Vote left Lou.And just before you put the ballot paper in the slot,use it to wave good bye to that $4000 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I just love baiting the ' Labour's done everything wrong and the Nats will put it right crowd'.
They all sound like first time voters.

[Pixie]

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I just love baiting the ' Labour's done everything wrong and the Nats will put it right crowd'.
They all sound like first time voters.
Short term memory loss

[MSTRS]

They all sound like first time voters.
More likely that they are voting as tho it is the last time they will be able to.....I know that I am as well informed as the next person, and damned if I'm gonna be flippant with and waste my two ticks.

[Motu]

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I just love baiting the ' Labour's done everything wrong and the Nats will put it right crowd'.
They all sound like first time voters.

Zigactly,they think their vote means something and a change of government will be a whole new world order.I was a hippy once y'know,I'm still waiting for the Age of Aquarius....but it was cancelled from lack of interest.

[MikeL]

Great! I have no debt and lots of investments :clap: :clap: :clap:

And no doubt you speak for the majority of New Zealanders. And equally clearly the wealth of the country will only be increased by rising interest rates.

Why am I taking the bait???

I know full well that you have your tongue firmly lodged in your cheek, and that like the rest of us intelligent KBers - and unlike the ignorant masses - you will be making a careful choice tomorow based on the best interests of the country rather than your own greed... :p

[MikeL]

Lets vote for Abraham "I cannot tell a Lie" Clark

Wasn't that George?

[Lias]

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I just love baiting the ' Labour's done everything wrong and the Nats will put it right crowd'.
They all sound like first time voters.
Some probably are.
I know at least some of my friends in the 18-22 category who are voting National fall into that category.

Personally I'm under no illusion that National is a magic wand to fixing the problems we are currently facing. I am however very much sick of the way things have been moving under Labour, and I'm willing to buy the "Change The Government" line, because the way I see it, it's decidely unlikely they will continue to push the boundaries in the areas where I am most uncomfrtable with Labours policies.

[MikeL]

Whats next.. The Freedom to have sex with an animal? the freedom to have sex with children? The freedom to murder who you want? the freedom to rape who you want? The freedom to steal what I want?

Civilizations always have a basic set of moral values that their legal systems are based on. What labour has been doing is steadily trying to errode what have been basic tennets of our moral values in the name of "personal freedom. By changing the legal system, they hope that with the general apathy of most voters, these changes will eventually sink back into the moral fibre of the country.



Probably a troll, but just in case anyone takes it seriously...

Exactly how are same-sex marriage and the legalisation of prostitution analogous to the crimes you mentioned? This is the usual illogical, un- thought-out knee-jerk reaction from self-righteous bigots who think that what they find distasteful should be against the law. The same inconsistent, hypocritical morons who thunder indignantly against anti-smoking laws and similar restrictions because they curtail their own freedom. If the protection of minority groups in society and the reduction in exploitation and actual demonstrable "crime" (and that, if you take the trouble to think carefully about the prostitution bill in particular, is what it was designed to do and has achieved) means that you have to put up with the indignity of having a discreet and orderly brothel in your leafy suburb, your indignation is more an indication of your own selfishness than any true moral principles. FWIW I have for years lived just down the road from the place at Greenwoods Corner that is so upsetting the true-blue Epsom electorate. It was quite a while, as a newcomer to the area, before I found out the nature of the business being carried out there.
As for same-sex marriage, this has been done to death on this forum and elsewhere. Try looking at the facts. A loving crelationship and commitment between two consenting adults being compared to bestiality and paedophilia?? Come on... Emotive claptrap.
You use what is to you distasteful social change as some sort of positive proof of a deliberate attempt by a political party to subvert the moral fibre of the country. To what end? To enable it to be more easily invaded and taken over by some enemy? The only conspiracy and subversion here is the propaganda by right-wing fundamentalists with their narrow definition of "family values" and the subsequent subversion of your own critical faculties and common-sense.

[mikey]

That's the General Election I'm referring to.

I'm not interested in who you're going to vote for. I'm interested in who you think will win. Understood?

shihad have the general electric already,

oh an for the record i couldn be fucked voting on tomorro so i voted today,
an like any true republican, i voted for legalise POT, they were sadly the most far fetched party to vote for, not much of an effort made by ridiculous parties this year, though the maori party are having quite a go at it the racist bastards

i think jeremy 'newsboy' wells should have a go at teh CAMPaigning thing

[Lias]

Probably a troll, but just in case anyone takes it seriously...

Exactly how are same-sex marriage and the legalisation of prostitution analogous to the crimes you mentioned? This is the usual illogical, un- thought-out knee-jerk reaction from self-righteous bigots who think that what they find distasteful should be against the law. The same inconsistent, hypocritical morons who thunder indignantly against anti-smoking laws and similar restrictions because they curtail their own freedom. If the protection of minority groups in society and the reduction in exploitation and actual demonstrable "crime" (and that, if you take the trouble to think carefully about the prostitution bill in particular, is what it was designed to do and has achieved) means that you have to put up with the indignity of having a discreet and orderly brothel in your leafy suburb, your indignation is more an indication of your own selfishness than any true moral principles. FWIW I have for years lived just down the road from the place at Greenwoods Corner that is so upsetting the true-blue Epsom electorate. It was quite a while, as a newcomer to the area, before I found out the nature of the business being carried out there.
As for same-sex marriage, this has been done to death on this forum and elsewhere. Try looking at the facts. A loving crelationship and commitment between two consenting adults being compared to bestiality and paedophilia?? Come on... Emotive claptrap.
You use what is to you distasteful social change as some sort of positive proof of a deliberate attempt by a political party to subvert the moral fibre of the country. To what end? To enable it to be more easily invaded and taken over by some enemy? The only conspiracy and subversion here is the propaganda by right-wing fundamentalists with their narrow definition of "family values" and the subsequent subversion of your own critical faculties and common-sense.

Half troll, half serious.
Brothels I have no problem with. Homosexuality I do have issues with, and I honestly believe that the legisation of homosexuality is a step on the road to legalisation of other sexual acts that are currently illegal. Homosexuality has been around along time, and only in the last few decades has it been legalised. Child sex and animal sex have been around equally as long, and if you think its prepostorous to say they will be legalized in 100 years, ponder if someone in 1906 ever imagined that homosexuals would not just be legally allowed to have sex, but they would be allowed to marry.

As to what end? I'd have thought that the answer was pretty much in the question. What you are asking is "Why are they trying to change society to what THEY CONSIDER IS BETTER". Answer is right there.. They believe that a society where these things are acceptable is "better" than the society we have (and I'm fairly sure you agree with them). I disagree.. I'ts really that simple.

[jrandom]

Sweet baby Jesus.

All I can say after reading through this thread is that 'Quasievil' is full of shit and dumb to boot, 'Keystone19' sounds like a great gal to know, and the rest of you are just a bunch of synical old bastards.

[MSTRS]

Question Poll: Who's going to win on Saturday?
That's the General Election I'm referring to.
As opposed to a Genital Erection??
Someone will score, or win, at least

[The Stranger]

Cynical and sin-ical but not synical.

[Hitcher]

I couldn't remember the name of the billboard thread...

[MikeL]

a society where these things are acceptable is "better" than the society we have

It's quite legitimate to have an opinion on whether one type of society is better than another. I would make two points though:
1. It is only because certain people thought that society could be better and opposed the status quo that any progress has ever been made.
2. Your opinion on why a particular change is for the better or the worse for society as a whole is only valid if you can support it with impartial evidence, not just prejudice against particular groups or behaviours.

[jrandom]

It's quite legitimate to have an opinion on whether one type of society is better than another...

Oh, lah de dah. You're one of those dope-smoking goatee-wearing peaceniks that go on about the validity of everyone's opinions? Yawn. Go form a committee and carry out a surgically-precise drop of strongly worded leaflets, you oxygen-wasting irrelevance.

Sometimes social ideals and the people who hold them are just wrong, dumb and ripe for a good old genocidal cleanup. Deal with it.

[Wolf]

Homosexuality has been around along time, and only in the last few decades has it been legalised. Child sex and animal sex have been around equally as long, and if you think its prepostorous to say they will be legalized in 100 years...
You are forgetting consent - a vitally important part of all of our laws governing sex.

The law of NZ deems that 16 is the age that a person is considered fit to make a reasonable decision about whether or not to have sex. Younger than that, the person is deemed "too young" to make such a decision and it is illegal for someone to have sex with a person under 16. "She (or he, for that matter) said yes" is not accepted as an excuse.

Animals are not capable of reasoned thought and cannot give consent for sex, hence sex with animals is a crime. "The sheep said it was OK" will not be accepted as an excuse.

Likewise non-consentual sex with a person of "legal age" is not permitted - it is called "rape" and it is a crime. "She asked for it, dressed like that" is not an accepted excuse.

Allowing consenting adults of the same sex to marry is nothing remotely like removing the restriction of consent that underpins the law.

As to morality - whose morality are we to follow? While most of the world's religions have a lot of common ground - no non-consentual sex, no stealing, no murder etc; and some would agree on no same-sex coupling and no extramarital sex, there are a lot of disagreements - what is deem "moral and right" by one is deemed "immoral" by others.

Whilst you obviously find same-sex unions as "immoral", there are those that disagree and there are those that would deem much of what you find acceptable to be "immoral".

Morality should never enter into consideration for "law" - it has in the past with catastrophic results (e.g. a reknowned poet/author/playright* jailed for most of his life for the "sin" of homosexuality whilst female homosexuals were not outlaws because the silly bitch on the throne didn't believe women would have sex for an reason but procreation and even that under protest)

The laws of consent are there for protection of the innocent - the young, the nonsentient and the unwilling - and whilst they are "in accord" with the laws of some moral frameworks, they are not "based on them" per se.

Consenting adult homosexuals do not need "protection" from each other, therefore laws banning them from having sex or getting married are not required. Laws allowing them to have legal recognition of union (if they desire) do, however, afford them the same legal protection that other united (married) couples have if things go wrong.

I have no issue with homosexuals (which does not make me a "commie") - what they do as consenting adults is their own concern.

Beware. Basing laws on someone's arbitrary interpretation of an arbitrary set of morals opens the floodgates to other "morality-based" laws. What then - imprisonment of those "living in sin"? Or those who commit adultery? Those who fail to observe someone's "Sabbath"? Those who fail to eat the right food?

Whose morality should the law be based on? What you deem to be acceptable will be deemed "immoral" by somebody, somewhere - just as you view homosexuality to be "immoral".

Remember: "Everybody is somebody else's heretic"

I would rather live in a country where protection of people and people's rights - even if I did not agree with those rights - governed the law, than one where the law was based on someone's perception of what was "right" or "moral".

And before you start the "what, their right/freedom to murder someone/steal what they want/rape who they want?" counter argument, that's not what I mean and you know it. Such "rights" and "freedoms" do not exist as they are contrary to the rights of those who would be raped, murdered or stolen from.



*Pos rep for the first to name him.

[Wolf]

Sweet baby Jesus.

All I can say after reading through this thread is that 'Quasievil' is full of shit and dumb to boot, 'Keystone19' sounds like a great gal to know, and the rest of you are just a bunch of synical old bastards.
:Oi: My parents were married - to each other - when I was conceived!

[jrandom]

a reknowned poet/author/playright* jailed for most of his life...

Wilde, and spell "renowned" right next time.

[Wolf]

Wilde, and spell "renowned" right next time.
Damn, typing too fast - also left out an "ed" on one of the "seemed", can't be arsed editing it.

Bling awarded.

[Lou Girardin]

Sweet baby Jesus.

All I can say after reading through this thread is that 'Quasievil' is full of shit and dumb to boot, 'Keystone19' sounds like a great gal to know, and the rest of you are just a bunch of synical old bastards.

That's C ynical to you, thank you. :hitcher:

[enigma51]

Sweet baby Jesus.

All I can say after reading through this thread is that 'Quasievil' is full of shit and dumb to boot, 'Keystone19' sounds like a great gal to know, and the rest of you are just a bunch of synical old bastards.

Let me see. judging by your tactics I would say you are a labour supporter. :sherlock:

[MSTRS]

Let me see. judging by your tactics I would say you are a labour supporter. :sherlock:
Best scenario. The name says it all. Fish (n) smelly, often covered in scales and/or slime, can't survive in the open air, swims against the current, preys on others, size-for-size has the smallest brain in the animal kingdom.

[enigma51]

Best scenario. The name says it all. Fish (n) smelly, often covered in scales and/or slime, can't survive in the open air, swims against the current, preys on others, size-for-size has the smallest brain in the animal kingdom.
:rofl: :clap:

[jrandom]

Best scenario. The name says it all. Fish (n) smelly, often covered in scales and/or slime, can't survive in the open air, swims against the current, preys on others, size-for-size has the smallest brain in the animal kingdom.

But they don't always bite the hook...

[Hitcher]

Oh, lah de dah. You're one of those dope-smoking goatee-wearing peaceniks that go on about the validity of everyone's opinions? Yawn. Go form a committee and carry out a surgically-precise drop of strongly worded leaflets, you oxygen-wasting irrelevance.

Sometimes social ideals and the people who hold them are just wrong, dumb and ripe for a good old genocidal cleanup. Deal with it.
Ooh goody. This should be fun...

[Ixion]

Ooh goody. This should be fun...

Got room on the front bench for another spectator? I've ordered in the beer, keep an eye out for the hotdog guy.

[eliot-ness]

*Pos rep for the first to name him.


Oscar Wilde I believe

[Lou Girardin]

Oscar Wilde I believe


Too late. Fish's Wilde.

[Ixion]

(e.g. a reknowned poet/author/playright* jailed for most of his life for the "sin" of homosexuality whilst female homosexuals were not outlaws because the silly bitch on the throne didn't believe women would have sex for an reason but procreation and even that under protest)


Scarely "most of his life" - two years hard labour , in fact.

And Vicky was rather notoriously randy (and complained loudly if Albert was away from home for too long).

Reason that female homosexuality was not illegal was much simpler (and more practical). 'Twas that homosexuality was not illegal (never was, since the middle ages at any rate). Sodomy, however, was, as was indecency. Since female homosexuals could not commit sodomy (or, at any rate the legislators' imagination was not equal to the task of imagining a way), and since they could not think of a way of defining in law what they DID do, it was decided by all parties to gloss over the matter. And especially since lesbian activity was hardly likely to affect discipline in the forces -which was what they were mainly worried about - (and , judging on the stories coming out of the US armed forces today, perhaps not with out reason)

They were very well aware that it existed. Few indeed of the educated classes of the day would have been unaware of the history of Lesbos, or of whom it was for that "burning Sappho sung".

[MikeL]

Well said, Ixion. If more people had an understanding of social history there would be fewer uninformed opinions. The laws against male homosexual acts which were on the statute books in this country until the mid-1980s and which caused untold harm (broken lives, suicide, unjust imprisonment) were passed by the colonial government to keep onside with Britain which brought the first laws in (called the Labouchere Amendment I believe) in the latter half of Queen Victoria's reign. The Labouchere Amendment was commonly referred to as the "Blackmailers' Charter".
A sorry saga which our more enlightened age now looks upon with incredulity and abhorrence. At least for now...
You people who are jumping up and down about these issues should read some history before you presume to take the high moral ground.

[Hitcher]

Oscar Wilde I believe
And, by a strange coincidence, Hon Fran Wilde whose private member's bill it was that resulted in the decriminalisation of homesexuality here in New Zealand. And the Stadium. Bless her!

[MikeL]

Oh, lah de dah. You're one of those dope-smoking goatee-wearing peaceniks that go on about the validity of everyone's opinions? Yawn. Go form a committee and carry out a surgically-precise drop of strongly worded leaflets, you oxygen-wasting irrelevance.

Sometimes social ideals and the people who hold them are just wrong, dumb and ripe for a good old genocidal cleanup. Deal with it.

Should I dignify this with a reply? As an oxygen-wasting irrelevance it's hard to see what I could hope to achieve. Logic and reason would be futile, considering that his whole post is a non-sequitur. I could try irony but it would pass over his head at considerable altitude. Sarcasm would be unsatisfying: the word literally means "flesh-tearing" and in the case of this fish the flesh would have the same consistency as his logic: flaky.
An appeal to common human decency is ruled out on obvious grounds.
That rules out just about everything I could say.
I think I'll just roll myself another joint and go back to mending my sandals.

[SPman]

Got room on the front bench for another spectator? I've ordered in the beer, keep an eye out for the hotdog guy.
Yeah, I'll shuffle over a bit - I'll have a Speights, thanks, mate!

[froggyfrenchman]

Who knows, who cares!

[Hitcher]

Should I dignify this with a reply? As an oxygen-wasting irrelevance it's hard to see what I could hope to achieve. Logic and reason would be futile, considering that his whole post is a non-sequitur. I could try irony but it would pass over his head at considerable altitude. Sarcasm would be unsatisfying: the word literally means "flesh-tearing" and in the case of this fish the flesh would have the same consistency as his logic: flaky.
An appeal to common human decency is ruled out on obvious grounds.
That rules out just about everything I could say.
I think I'll just roll myself another joint and go back to mending my sandals.
Fifteen all...

[Indiana_Jones]

10:16 the night before the election. I donno who to vote for. Act or national? lol

-Indy

[oldrider]

My view of the election results for Saturday:

The left wing
Labour
Greens
Progressive

Center
National (largest party)

Right wing
Nill

Fence Sitters
United Future
Maori
NZ 1st

Labour, Greens, Progressive. Coalition, supported by the fence sitters IE: The Government

National opposition with modest support from the fence sitters.

More real taxpayers will probably leave the country leaving the pretend taxpayers supporting a bankrupt country full of unsupported beneficiaries. God defend New Zealand, because we wont be able to do it ourselves. Cheers John. :puke:

[MikeL]

More real taxpayers will probably leave the country leaving the pretend taxpayers supporting a bankrupt country full of unsupported beneficiaries. God defend New Zealand, because we wont be able to do it ourselves. Cheers John. :puke:

This seems to be a commonly-held view, yet those who hold it are not often able to support it with concrete evidence, relying on hearsay, gut-feeling, limited personal experience...
The idea that we are grossly over-taxed and supporting a vast contingent of benefit-bludgers needs to be subjected to some rational scrutiny, including international comparisons and some relevant statistics. I find it hard for instance to reconcile the fact of record-low unemployment with the "fact" of record-high dole bludgers...

As for the idea that people will desert N.Z. for countries where they pay less tax, those who take such a limited view of what this country is all about are welcome to exercise their freedom to relocate to Oz. To paraphrase the well-known saying, it will increase the average intellect and level of culture on both sides of the Tasman, and leave more room for the rest of us to enjoy the non-economic benefits of living here. When the rest of the world cottons on to the fact that there is more to life than constant consumption and economic growth, they will be queuing up to come here, and those who deserted what they saw as a sinking ship may find they have lost their opportunity to secure a corner of what still remains a small paradise.

[froggyfrenchman]

well off to vote... eeny meeny miny... fuck it just tick a box

[Wolf]

Scarely "most of his life" - two years hard labour , in fact.

And Vicky was rather notoriously randy (and complained loudly if Albert was away from home for too long).

Reason that female homosexuality was not illegal was much simpler (and more practical). 'Twas that homosexuality was not illegal (never was, since the middle ages at any rate). Sodomy, however, was, as was indecency. Since female homosexuals could not commit sodomy (or, at any rate the legislators' imagination was not equal to the task of imagining a way), and since they could not think of a way of defining in law what they DID do, it was decided by all parties to gloss over the matter. And especially since lesbian activity was hardly likely to affect discipline in the forces -which was what they were mainly worried about - (and , judging on the stories coming out of the US armed forces today, perhaps not with out reason)

They were very well aware that it existed. Few indeed of the educated classes of the day would have been unaware of the history of Lesbos, or of whom it was for that "burning Sappho sung".
That's right, spoil my fun of slamming the Monarchy, especially the ugly trout-shaped ones...

[Oscar]

When the rest of the world cottons on to the fact that there is more to life than constant consumption and economic growth, they will be queuing up to come here, and those who deserted what they saw as a sinking ship may find they have lost their opportunity to secure a corner of what still remains a small paradise.


Ahhh, you appear to subscribe to Chairperson Fitzsimmons "Great Leap Backwards".

[Sniper]

Fuck, I don't really care. Anyone of those two will just fuck up NZ more than it is.

[Jamezo]

This seems to be a commonly-held view, yet those who hold it are not often able to support it with concrete evidence, relying on hearsay, gut-feeling, limited personal experience...
The idea that we are grossly over-taxed and supporting a vast contingent of benefit-bludgers needs to be subjected to some rational scrutiny, including international comparisons and some relevant statistics. I find it hard for instance to reconcile the fact of record-low unemployment with the "fact" of record-high dole bludgers...

As for the idea that people will desert N.Z. for countries where they pay less tax, those who take such a limited view of what this country is all about are welcome to exercise their freedom to relocate to Oz. To paraphrase the well-known saying, it will increase the average intellect and level of culture on both sides of the Tasman, and leave more room for the rest of us to enjoy the non-economic benefits of living here. When the rest of the world cottons on to the fact that there is more to life than constant consumption and economic growth, they will be queuing up to come here, and those who deserted what they saw as a sinking ship may find they have lost their opportunity to secure a corner of what still remains a small paradise.

seriously, MikeL for prez.....

it's a sad testament to the reasoning of our voters when they cannot look beyond a perceived shallow self-interest. the words that have resonated most strongly in me in the entire election campaign were those of dear old Jeannette:

"New Zealanders need to look up from their calculators, and see what kind of society we are building here"

National wants us to forget our common humanity, and lead us down the road of the United States: massive social inequality. I do not want to build that society, no matter how large the bribes we are offered for voting against humane society.

I found it interesting that the NZ media, which is largely responsible for setting the agenda of the elections, did not bring up one issue about a greater social malaise facing our country. namely, that while incomes in real terms have remained stagnant for New Zealanders over the past decade, those in the executive and capitalist sectors have seen their relative incomes rise over 200%.

no doubt if it were raised, the response of the Right would be to cut taxes, dampening the blow to social equality (at least initially....), but it hasn't even been mentioned. does this show how closely aligned the media is to existing power structures?

[Oscar]

I found it interesting that the NZ media, which is largely responsible for setting the agenda of the elections, did not bring up one issue about a greater social malaise facing our country. namely, that while incomes in real terms have remained stagnant for New Zealanders over the past decade, those in the executive and capitalist sectors have seen their relative incomes rise over 200%.



I find it interesting that you would quote that figure with nothing to back it up.

I call bullshit.

[oldrider]

This seems to be a commonly-held view, yet those who hold it are not often able to support it with concrete evidence, relying on hearsay, gut-feeling, limited personal experience...
The idea that we are grossly over-taxed and supporting a vast contingent of benefit-bludgers needs to be subjected to some rational scrutiny, including international comparisons and some relevant statistics. I find it hard for instance to reconcile the fact of record-low unemployment with the "fact" of record-high dole bludgers...

I am a beneficiary if you like. (pensioner) There is a very large growing number of people following in my footsteps (baby boomers) that will have to be supported under the present scheme. This has been a hot topic over the past few years. If too many "earners" leave the country the ability to support the current beneficiaries plus the increasing numbers will become stretched to say the least. That is the basis of my comment including all of the above. Cheers John.

[MikeL]

I am a beneficiary if you like. (pensioner) There is a very large growing number of people following in my footsteps (baby boomers) that will have to be supported under the present scheme. This has been a hot topic over the past few years. If too many "earners" leave the country the ability to support the current beneficiaries plus the increasing numbers will become stretched to say the least. That is the basis of my comment including all of the above. Cheers John.
That is a valid point. The phenomenon is not confined to NZ, of course, and other western countries are facing similar demographic trends. Since I'm not an economist I don't have a thorough understanding of all the factors involved, but I'm not convinced that the only solution is to artificially maintain economic growth through indiscriminate immigration, which seems to me to be a cure worse than the disease...

[MikeL]

Ahhh, you appear to subscribe to Chairperson Fitzsimmons "Great Leap Backwards".

I hear the sneer. As I've said on more than one occasion before, the Greens can be flaky on some specific issues but as people who care about more things than the size of their bank accounts they and their principles deserve better consideration than the unthinking put-downs with which the condescending and the self-interested like to sweep what are valid concerns under the carpet...

[Sniper]

Im just gonna tick all the boxes to piss them off

[N4CR]

Im just gonna tick all the boxes to piss them off

My dad and his brother used to do that in Holland when they lived there - it is a legal requirement to vote... so tick 'em all and make it invalid ;D

[Wolf]

Im just gonna tick all the boxes to piss them off
Remember: It is vitally important to not waste your vote - so don't give it to any of the thieving, lying bastards...

I'll vote when there is someone worth voting for - someone who is honest and has policies I agree with.

[MacD]

This seems to be a commonly-held view, yet those who hold it are not often able to support it with concrete evidence, relying on hearsay, gut-feeling, limited personal experience...
The idea that we are grossly over-taxed and supporting a vast contingent of benefit-bludgers needs to be subjected to some rational scrutiny, including international comparisons and some relevant statistics.

One reason that there is so little concrete evidence given for NZers being over-taxed is that international comparisons are hard to make due to the wide variation in taxations systems. There is very little evidence to support this assertion when NZ is compared to similar Western economies, including Australia. Comparisons to places such as Singapore are fairly pointless as they do not provide anywhere near the same level of social services to their citizens.

In comparison to Australia, the average wage/salary earner tax burden is about the same overall, it is just obtained in different ways. While the headline company tax rate might be a few percent lower in Australia, Australian companies have to pay Payroll tax which is collected by the states. Australians also have to pay Medicare tax, Capital Gains tax, and Stamp Duty on property sales. Also the upper income bracket tax rates are higher in Australia, 42c/$ >$63,000 and 47c/$ >$95000 compared to the single rate of 39c/$ >$60000 in NZ.

Here is an OECD (http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html) publication comparing "All in average personal tax rates (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/1/1942490.xls)" between OECD countries. For a single person, no children, (the first column) the average tax rate for Australia is 24.3% while for NZ it is 20.7% (2004 figures). Only 7 out of 30 countries listed have a lower all-in personal tax rate than NZ. Hardly tremendous evidence of us being over-taxed.

[oldrider]

Well I have been and done my vote thing. I had not really decided what I would do right up to eyes down peepers on the paper. I gave two ticks for National. Am I happy with my actions? No not really because I voted negatively rather than positively. I have been enslaved to the wants of the media and their evil polls. I do not like the National party but have supported them rather than the status quo (left) because the media and their polls suggest there may be a possibility for change.
A and B fighting for the benefit of C. I ask myself just who is "C" and how do they benefit from you and me arguing over the information fed to us by the media, so that either result is the same for them in the long run. The only constant losers are you and me, that hasn't changed at all over the 45yrs I have been voting.
Having read all the guff available on as many of those offering themselves at this election and their policies I would place myself firmly between Democrats for Social Credit and the Libertarian parties. Strange bedfellows you might well say! Well read their guff for yourself and really think about it. I think you could be surprised. There would have to be vital changes of each but I think their best points would be a great mix. Oh well lets see what today's pantomime will bring on for us. :sick: Cheers John.

[SPman]

Done my thing, and it sure as hell weren't National. If Brash becomes PM - this country is in for a rough ride.

One person I would like to see in parliament (but it won't happen) is Pita Sharples!

[SPman]

Fuck, I don't really care. Anyone of those two will just fuck up NZ more than it is.
What fucks up a country - the apathy of the people in it!

[Sniper]

What fucks up a country - the apathy of the people in it!

Im South African and I don't really give a fuck about beaurocrats and polcys ect. The day I kick up a fuss is when they tell me Im not allowed to ride my bike. Until then...........

[MacD]

Done my thing, and it sure as hell weren't National. If Brash becomes PM - this country is in for a rough ride.

One person I would like to see in parliament (but it won't happen) is Pita Sharples!

Hmmm, I think he's got a good chance of winning Tamaki-Makaurau. He presents a much more voter-friendly persona than Tariana Turia IMO.

[MikeL]

Im South African and I don't really give a fuck about beaurocrats and polcys ect. The day I kick up a fuss is when they tell me Im not allowed to ride my bike. Until then...........

Then it will be too late. You will have lost far more by then than your right to ride...

[MikeL]

Hardly tremendous evidence of us being over-taxed.

Thanks MacD. That's just the sort of thing I was looking for.

[TwoSeven]

looks like the kb poll was pretty accurate then :)

[Marknz]

looks like the kb poll was pretty accurate then :)

Yea, it's looking pretty blue for the party in red right now isn't it. It's too early to call it, but it's looking pretty clear cut even at this stage. And even the Greens might miss out altogether

[Karma]

Yea, it's looking pretty blue for the party in red right now isn't it. It's too early to call it, but it's looking pretty clear cut even at this stage. And even the Greens might miss out altogether

How funny would that be, I'm not eligable to vote so it doesn't make a big deal to me, but there was a lot of talk about a Labour / Green coalition, and it seems (at this early stage, I may yet be wrong) that Labour has been beat, and the Greens may be down for the count.

[MikeL]

Don't write Labour off just yet. At the moment the gap has narrowed to 2.5%.

[MacD]

Greens are up over 5% and the Labour/National gap is closing as the urban vote is counted. Will it be up to Winston to choose who gets to form the Government again? Treasurer Peters anybody?

(Party vote count care of TVNZ here (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/election_2005_summary_skin/Summary))

[MikeL]

Nats 40.8, Labour 39.6

[MikeL]

I agree. National will win. Most people won't look beyond the tax cuts.

You understand, of course, that my original post was purely apotropaeic...

[Keystone19]

Labour 40.51, National 39.83...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TwoSeven]

Interesting how things change. Currently with 96.5% votes counted, there is only 15k votes in it between labour and nat. There is also only 15k votes between NZ first and the Green party.

[Virago]

Greens are up over 5% and the Labour/National gap is closing as the urban vote is counted. Will it be up to Winston to choose who gets to form the Government again? Treasurer Peters anybody?

(Party vote count care of TVNZ here (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/election_2005_summary_skin/Summary))
Winston has already started his "king-maker" gloating..... . Fuck!!!!!!!!

[MacD]

You understand, of course, that my original post was purely apotropaeic...
:devil2:

OK, I admit I had to look it up

[ManDownUnder]

at the risk of repeating myself too soon - anyone care to see post 13 of this thread

(my arm hurts - patting yourself on the back ain't easy!)

[scumdog]

None of them would write-off the Maori seats, none of them were serious about reducing crime, none would guarantee my fire-arms ownership, none of them would put a line through that white mans burden-the Treaty of Waitangi, none of them would agree to spend more money INSIDE New Zealand than outside it, and they ALL lie so I spit on the lot of them.
I would vote for a rabid three legged blind impotent dog rather than them because at least the dog wouldn't screw me like the Gov't will.

[MikeL]

None of them would write-off the Maori seats, none of them were serious about reducing crime, none would guarantee my fire-arms ownership, none of them would put a line through that white mans burden-the Treaty of Waitangi, none of them would agree to spend more money INSIDE New Zealand than outside it, and they ALL lie so I spit on the lot of them.
I would vote for a rabid three legged blind impotent dog rather than them because at least the dog wouldn't screw me like the Gov't will.
1 In what way exactly does the existence of Maori seats affect your quality of life?
2 How do you suggest that any government get serious about reducing crime without putting heaps more of your money into spending either on social services and education or more prisons, more police etc??
3 Which parties have vowed to take away your fire-arms?
4 By putting a line through the Treaty do you mean repudiating it?
5 What do you mean by spending money inside N.Z. rather than outside it? Whose money?
6 What proven lies have come from the Maori Party, the Greens, Jim Anderton...?
It seems to me that if you're going to get screwed you should at least try to put yourself in a position to make it as painless as possible...

[scumdog]

1 In what way exactly does the existence of Maori seats affect your quality of life?
2 How do you suggest that any government get serious about reducing crime without putting heaps more of your money into spending either on social services and education or more prisons, more police etc??
3 Which parties have vowed to take away your fire-arms?
4 By putting a line through the Treaty do you mean repudiating it?
5 What do you mean by spending money inside N.Z. rather than outside it? Whose money?
6 What proven lies have come from the Maori Party, the Greens, Jim Anderton...?
It seems to me that if you're going to get screwed you should at least try to put yourself in a position to make it as painless as possible...

(1) Do NOT believe there should be race based seats - should only be on merit.
(2) Increase front line Police numbers in N.Z. - and not send so many overseas etc.
(3)None have 'vowed' to - but rest assured with the help of Alper the Wanker they WILL try, especially Labour.
(4) Give a cut-off date, after that? nada, none zilch 'pay-outs', we have enough leeches as it is and all those depending on Treaty pay-outs will never get their sorry arses off the ground if they think they are going to get a hand-out. (would YOU under the same circumstances)?.
(5)Our money, for instance what benefit has any help to the Solomons,Afghanistan etc ever brought to N.Z.??
(5) Haven't the time but just compare the pre-election 'promises' with what actually happens AFTER the elections.

[TwoSeven]

In case anything changes the link for the result is Here (http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html)

They need a coalition of 62 seats to lead the government.

[pyrocam]

damn labour!

-Indy

[Gremlin]

Not over yet tho, listening to 3, and T7 mentions 193,348 special votes, 3 said 218,000 special votes.

Those have yet to be counted and apparently will only start to be counted after 12 days... and with the closeness of the race, who knows what will happen.

Scintillating stuff!!! :killingme

[scumdog]

Watching the election shit on TV at the mo., Labour blah-blah-blah at present, just behind Sir Helen to her right is a dummy wot looks like a woman with a grey beard, who IS this figure ??

[Waylander]

Is it just me or has Helen gotten uglier?

[MikeL]

Hmmm... not a convincing riposte...


(1) Do NOT believe there should be race based seats - should only be on merit.
So it's a matter of principle? Your actual quality of life is not diminished by the existence of separate Maori seats, which are important symbolically to Maori as a recognition of their status as tangata whenua? Or do you believe that this status should not be recognised?
(2) Increase front line Police numbers in N.Z. - and not send so many overseas etc.
And you would forego any tax cuts to pay for increased spending on police? What about education, health...?
(3)None have 'vowed' to - but rest assured with the help of Alper the Wanker they WILL try, especially Labour.
So it's just a hypothetical possibility then? Not policy?
(4) Give a cut-off date, after that? nada, none zilch 'pay-outs', we have enough leeches as it is and all those depending on Treaty pay-outs will never get their sorry arses off the ground if they think they are going to get a hand-out. (would YOU under the same circumstances)?.
So all Treaty settlements have gone to pond-dwelling scum who squander your hard-earned money ? None has gone into investing in infrastructure or education or anything positive?
(5)Our money, for instance what benefit has any help to the Solomons,Afghanistan etc ever brought to N.Z.??
So if we abolished all overseas aid would the few extra cents in your weekly take-home pay compensate for the loss of international reputation?
(5) Haven't the time but just compare the pre-election 'promises' with what actually happens AFTER the elections.
So the Maoris, Greens and Jim Anderton don't actually have a track record of consistent dishonesty?

[Gremlin]

Watching the election shit on TV at the mo., Labour blah-blah-blah at present, just behind Sir Helen to her right is a dummy wot looks like a woman with a grey beard, who IS this figure ??
hubby?? I think. The one that thought she was hot wearing leather and riding scooter :sick:

[Gremlin]

Is it just me or has Helen gotten uglier?
Stop perving at her in woman's day. :blah:

[Waylander]

Stop perving at her in woman's day. :blah:
Gods man, I may be desperate but not THAT desperate.:sick::puke:

[scumdog]

Hmmm... not a convincing riposte...

Must be - you haven't questioned any of it.

[Gremlin]

Gods man, I may be desperate but not THAT desperate.:sick::puke:
Beeeeeeaaaauuuuutiful close up at the moment for you :puke:

[Waylander]

Beeeeeeaaaauuuuutiful close up at the moment for you :puke:
Think I may just go rip out my eyes now.

[MikeL]

Must be - you haven't questioned any of it.

I give up. Off to bed.
Yaaaaaaawn....

[Milky]

Twas an interesting night of results, especially the evaporation of the initial spread between the major parties. The next couple of weeks will be intriguing, given Dunne's position on Labour-Green coalition, and the possibility of a Maori party/National agreement on the other side. Labour looks to have the most options at the moment, but I imagine it will be another minority govt propped up by confidence and supply.

What are your thoughts on Brash? He had indicated that he might stay around if the Nats lost this election, but I think given his performance, he would be a good choice to keep on for the 2008 campaign. I for one quite like his 'non politician' politiking. Tis greatly refreshing, and with a couple more years in govt/opposition he would make a good PM.

[scumdog]

I give up. Off to bed.
Yaaaaaaawn....

Ah, a good politicians response, you weren't standing for any party were you??

[Ixion]

Hmmm... not a convincing riposte...

Well, in the interests of debate:

1. Since, by definition, Maori seats mean preferential treatment for a minority part of society based solely on race, this must be detrimental to the quality of life of the non preferred race. The fact that this detriment cannot readily be quantified or particularised does not invalidate it. Can YOU specifiy EXACTLY how global warming affects your quality of life. Today ? (As an example). It's an old debating trick to demand that an opponent particularise that which is in its nature general.

2.How much does 8 foot of hempen rope cost?

3. Verso, what parties have undertaken to assure firearms ownership in the community?

4. Calling for a stop to the Treaty grievance industry is not the same as calling for its repudiation. You extend Mr Scumdog's position beyond what his statements will admit. He didn't say repudiate it. Do you argue that the taxpayer should be willing to continue to foot the expense , for all time to come, of an endless series of bottomless claims ? (No, that's not what you said, but it's no more unfair than you served him)

5. Whose money? As always, the taxpayers. The poor sods who get up each morning and slog their guts out, to earn a wage that governments promptly takes away from them to hand over to other people. Many of whom are not even New Zealanders, and many of whom haven't done an honest stroke of work in years. It is remarkable that the left always assume that workers have no right to the produce of their toil.

6. It is quite possible to be certain that a person is dishonest without being able to prove a specific act of dishonesty. Richard Nixon was never convicted of a single falsehood. Believe he was honest?

[scumdog]

Hmmm... not a convincing riposte...
(1) Why should it be ME that pays? - I'd rather see that money spent on education.hospitals etc. for ALL.
(2)Why would I need to 'forego any tax cuts"? The Gov't has already spent that money, all I ask is that it be spent HERE.
(3) None have vowed? Fair point but they ARE a member of U.N , just look at THEIR policies.
(4)No, I never mentioned "pond dwelling scum' BUT I don't expect centuries of hand-outs and I don't expect anybody else to get them either, let people have dignity and stand on their own two feet.
(5)International reputation? from the Solomons and Somalia? sorry, the point went right over my head but I can't see NZ being THAT much better off as a result of a better "international reputation"
(6)I never mentioned parties but they ALL have convenient amnesia when it suits.

[campbellluke]

Im just gonna tick all the boxes to piss them off

I was a counter last election where some asshole decided to use their right to vote to do that. Had to ring and announce that there was a person the voted in a "special" way for no specific party. Really annoying and a waste of time.

I hope you didn't do that for the sake of the counters :-(

----

Anyhow:

Labour - Progressive - United Future - NZ First - Maori Party makes 64 seats?

Hopefully the special votes will bring Progressive up to 1.3% to take up another seat and screw up National even more :whistle:

[jrandom]

The next couple of weeks will be intriguing, given Dunne's position on Labour-Green coalition, and the possibility of a Maori party/National agreement on the other side.

The Mâoris won't have a bar of supporting or entering coalition with a party that went into the election promising to abolish the Mâori seats. Their constituency may leech off the hardworking Pakeha and form 50% of the jail population, but it ain't stupid.

Turia and Sharples will mumble a bit to Helen about the foreshore and seabed stuff for a couple of days, and end up realising that they'll do better to let that go and get on with achieving what they can in the next term, which will be more if they're in coalition.

There'll be a 61-seat-majority coalition-of-four-parties Government within a fortnight. Peters and Dunne will be left out in the cold. Good job.


What are your thoughts on Brash?

Power-hungry pig who hasn't learned to keep his snout clean. He'll get better at it with time.

[jrandom]

Should I dignify this with a reply?

Nup. Given as this was my first contribution, and you dont have a meaningful target since I dont actually have a position.

Come to think of it, perhaps I should run for government.


his whole post is a non-sequitur...

True, but whats with the hyphen? And the 'his'?


flaky...

But toothsome.


go back to mending my sandals.

I bet you wear them with socks.

[Sniper]

I was a counter last election where some asshole decided to use their right to vote to do that. Had to ring and announce that there was a person the voted in a "special" way for no specific party. Really annoying and a waste of time.

I hope you didn't do that for the sake of the counters :-(



I didn't actually do that in the end as the threat of sleeping on the couch for a week deterred me. :eek5:

[Indiana_Jones]

I knew labour would just hang onto it :(
But still there are still special votes etc, but don't hold your breath they always goto the greens and ligealize pot party ;)
And we still haven't seen what coalitions will be made, but.....

EPSOM!!!!!!

ACT IS BACK!!!!!

-Indy

[N4CR]

Thank goodness we didn't get all the christians into govt... fundies are not good to govern...

Nice reasonably hidden christian agenda (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3414361a14095,00.html) brash. :2thumbsup



My mate knows a political statician... he was correct on every count predicting last night: nats lead, then labour picks up and pulls out a narrow lead as such.

[Motu]

I thought it was a bit over the top when with only 5% of votes counted the TV people were wondering when Labour would conceed defeat,I thought they were supposed to know more than dummies like me.I have never voted in a National stronghold,everywhere I've lived has been strong Labour and I've been happy to vote minor paties knowing I won't make a scrap of difference.Yesterday I voted not for what I wanted for my country,but for what I didn't want.I was not on the Electoral Role,I did some sort of special vote,dunno if I was counted last night or not....didn't see my name.

If Don Brash doesn't get into power there is talk of him dropping out of politics,the guy is not there for the long haul,he was used to get votes.The guy is a total sham.

[Quasievil]

here is a definition of a country about to go down the tiolet.

Labour + Greens + Maoris = Fucked country

[MacD]

I wouldn't rule out the Maori Party supporting a National-based coalition government. Here's an alternate view.

In many ways the Maori Party could be considered to be a brown version of ACT. It was formed as a response to a perceived alienation of individual (albeit at the iwi level) property rights, it strongly supports intellectual property rights, self-determination (ie. less government interference) and its manifesto included tax cuts.

Maori trusts and corporations are quite friendly with the business sector with whom they have to work closely, particularly in the areas of fisheries and forestry.

While the stereotype of Maori still seems to be of dole bludgers the reality is that there are many successful small and large Maori business groups operating in the community.

The Maori Party could also claim to hold greater sway over a National Government than a Labour Government. They could claim that they turned around the National Party plan to abolish Maori seats (which was probably always a hollow promise anyway) as a means of demonstrating their political power. What would being a member of a Labour government give them? Nothing more than the status quo.

Finally I suspect Tariana Turia would join a National coalition just to spite Helen Clark and the Labour party.

I guess we will see.

[oldrider]

Labour - Progressive - United Future - NZ First - Maori Party makes 64 seats?

Hopefully the special votes will bring Progressive up to 1.3% to take up another seat and screw up National even more :whistle:

So OK, I offer you no argument but how is this result going to benefit you and me?

I have seen alternative Labour/National governments running this country since 1939. (or there abouts)

Have any of them really been interested in my welfare? I think not!

The results have been the same no matter which one has been in power.

Greater erosion of my individual rights and freedom. Greater erosion of the purchasing power of my income. More and more rules and regulations for what I can or can not do in my own home. Etc etc etc.

I do note there has been one exception.

When Rob Muldoon bankrupted the country completely.

The 1984 Labour Government set about turning the circle around.

I did not vote for them, I did not agree with their actions.

I did however watch and listen intently and believe the following to be true:

The actions taken by the 1984 Labour Govt are the reason why we are experiencing better times today.

Clark, Anderton and Langey were deserters from that course of action.

All that the 1984 Govt represented and the proponents moved out of the Labour party to ACT.

The National and Labour parties then resumed the same old circle of crap of selling the voters two versions of the same rubbish to choose from aided and abetted by the news media.

This mob have combined their efforts in constantly denouncing ACT at every opportunity. What are they afraid of? ACT exposing their little club?

I am not an ACT supporter but I do not think our best interests for the long term are with the two main parties offering today.

2005 Briefly:

In the short term National offered to return more of our purchasing power to "us" to spend as "we" will.

Labour on the other hand wanted to continue to erode our purchasing power even more. They then spend the money they have stolen from us where "they" want to spend it for "themslves" and promote their poltical expediency?

Ask yourselves, are you going to be better off with the Labour coalition or a National coalition for the next three years.

I voted two ticks for National. Am I happy with that? In the short term yes!

Does that make me a National Supporter?

In the short term, yes.

In the long term NO.

How can I break free from this damn cycle?

Some thoughts written down, for what they are worth. John. :zzzz:

[jrandom]

the Maori Party could be considered to be a brown version of ACT...

What's te reo for 'Sieg Heil'?

[Wolf]

here is a definition of a country about to go down the tiolet.

Labour + Greens + Maoris = Fucked country
Thing is with our so called "Democracy", neither of the two "main parties" Nats or Labour have more than 41% of the country's support - i.e. Whichever one makes a govt, around 60% of the public doesn't want them in power. And when they get in they repeat their time-honoured practises - Labour fucks up the country one way, National fucks it up another way. They also each make things better for some people.

Maybe STV would have been a fairer system than MMP, perhaps if we'd already been using STV for local council for a few years when the referendum re parliamentary elections was held, the result would have been different.

FWIW, I am glad we have ditched the FPP system, though. I like the fact I can vote for any party I want, not just the ones who have a candidate in my electorate as with the old FPP system.

Yes, I did vote, and I tried some strategic vote-splitting of party vs candidate votes - didn't vote for either Nats or Labour, so whichever gets in I still reserve the right to bitch about them and the bastards wot voted for 'em :devil2:

Under FPP I would have had only the electorate candidates to vote for, so if my preferred party did not have a local candidate (it didn't) I would not be able to vote for that party and would have to choose between not voting and voting for another party that I didn't really want.

I still don't think the main parties have come to grips with MMP, yet - they are not capable of courting enough public support to gain a clear majority on their own. Makes me wonder if they only got majorities under FPP owing to people voting for them solely because MacGillicuddy Serious didn't have a local candidate...

[jrandom]

MacGillicuddy Serious didn't have a local candidate...

Now there's a proper political party for you. If I had the balls to do it (metaphorically speaking, as I don't have any to start with) I'd change my name to Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel and get it up and running again.

[MacD]

What's te reo for 'Sieg Heil'?

So are you drawing a parallel between the rise to power of the National Socialist party in Germany following the First World War, based on promises of self-determination for the German people who felt they had been very harshly treated following the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of the Maori Party in NZ who also promote self-determination and nationhood?

Or was it just a throw-away line? :shifty:

[jrandom]

So are you drawing a parallel between the rise to power of the National Socialist party in Germany following the First World War, based on promises of self-determination for the German people who felt they had been very harshly treated following the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of the Maori Party in NZ who also promote self-determination and nationhood?

Nice!

Can I keep you around to lend depth and meaning to my posts on a regular basis, then?

[Jackrat]

What's te reo for 'Sieg Heil'?

According to the Mongrel mob it's "Sieg Heil" :whistle:

[MacD]

Nice!

Can I keep you around to lend depth and meaning to my posts on a regular basis, then?

We'll see! :corn:

[MSTRS]

Now there's a proper political party for you. If I had the balls to do it (metaphorically speaking, as I don't have any to start with) I'd change my name to Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel and get it up and running again.
Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel THE THIRD. Jeez, can't you get anything right??

[Oscar]

Mâoris

If yer gonna parade your pathetic PCness, get it right.

That's the wrong accent on Māori, and the plural is Māori.

[Jamezo]

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children!

[Milky]

The Mâoris won't have a bar of supporting or entering coalition with a party that went into the election promising to abolish the Mâori seats. Their constituency may leech off the hardworking Pakeha and form 50% of the jail population, but it ain't stupid.

Turia and Sharples will mumble a bit to Helen about the foreshore and seabed stuff for a couple of days, and end up realising that they'll do better to let that go and get on with achieving what they can in the next term, which will be more if they're in coalition.

I agree, the maori party probably will get more done if they are in government, but I think that they will be better off on the cross benches, looking at the state of Alliance/Progressives/United. Greatly disparate numbers in coalitions have lead to the smaller parties being swallowed in the past, and as the maori party is relatively new, in my view, it would be better to consolidate its structure and figure out how to be a political party, not a racial party. Ironically, the creation and future success of the maori party may be the beginning of the end for the maori seats - one of the things they hold so dear. It may prove to the rest of the country, and maori themselves, that they can be a political force WITHOUT those special seats.

[MacD]

Ironically, the creation and future success of the maori party may be the beginning of the end for the maori seats - one of the things they hold so dear. It may prove to the rest of the country, and maori themselves, that they can be a political force WITHOUT those special seats.

You may be right, but not quite in the way you say. In his victory speech, Hone Harawira stated that his primary aim is to (re)establish a separate Maori parliament.

[Milky]

You may be right, but not quite in the way you say. In his victory speech, Hone Harawira stated that his primary aim is to (re)establish a separate Maori parliament.

uhhhh *shudders*

[Ixion]

What's te reo for 'Sieg Heil'?
*Invokes Godwin's Law*

Get thee gone.

[Pixie]

hubby?? I think. The one that thought she was hot wearing leather and riding scooter :sick:
Has anyone noticed how similar her "husband" and girlfriend look? :sick:

[Pixie]

According to the Mongrel mob it's "Sieg Heil" :whistle:
It's always amused me that a group that would be the first to be trucked off to the gas chambers, use "sieg Heil" as a salute

[kerryg]

It's always amused me that a group that would be the first to be trucked off to the gas chambers, use "sieg Heil" as a salute


Bring back the Third Reich I say..... :yes:

[Lou Girardin]

Ironically, the creation and future success of the maori party may be the beginning of the end for the maori seats - one of the things they hold so dear. It may prove to the rest of the country, and maori themselves, that they can be a political force WITHOUT those special seats.

How do you figure this?
They won 4 Maori seats, no others.

[Lou Girardin]

Bring back the Third Reich I say..... :yes:

Fourth Reich aka Destiny Party. But they've a long way to go.
.55% of the vote :rofl:

[Hitcher]

Fourth Reich aka Destiny Party. But they've a long way to go.
.55% of the vote
What this tells us, gentle readers, is that most Destiny Church members don't vote for their party either. One word: Irrelevant.

[Phurrball]

I wouldn't rule out the Maori Party supporting a National-based coalition government. Here's an alternate view.

In many ways the Maori Party could be considered to be a brown version of ACT. It was formed as a response to a perceived alienation of individual (albeit at the iwi level) property rights, it strongly supports intellectual property rights, self-determination (ie. less government interference) and its manifesto included tax cuts.

Maori trusts and corporations are quite friendly with the business sector with whom they have to work closely, particularly in the areas of fisheries and forestry.

While the stereotype of Maori still seems to be of dole bludgers the reality is that there are many successful small and large Maori business groups operating in the community.

The Maori Party could also claim to hold greater sway over a National Government than a Labour Government. They could claim that they turned around the National Party plan to abolish Maori seats (which was probably always a hollow promise anyway) as a means of demonstrating their political power. What would being a member of a Labour government give them? Nothing more than the status quo.

Finally I suspect Tariana Turia would join a National coalition just to spite Helen Clark and the Labour party.

I guess we will see.

See we shall...

I wonder what the 'mainstream' New Zealanders would make of such a move from that Nats? It's open as a possibility...but oh the irony...

I'm sure that the Maori party would be just as popular in the Maori seats (should they exist at that juncture) as NZ first was in those seats after a term in coalition with National.

If the words of Hone Harawira on National Radio on the night were anything to go by, it isn't a likely scenario.

Labour hasn't lost any share of the vote, but the Nats seem to have pushed the the right spin buttons successfully. Perhaps by the next election the Nats might actually be ready to govern. Did anyone go through their policy documents and count how many things they were going to 'review'? Or check out their 82-word communications policy? Any party with such a paucity of well-defined policy isn't ready to govern. The Nats have proven you can almost win on hollow rhetoric and spin...but I'm thankful they aren't likely to be demonstrating what flavour of government can come to pass from such vague and ill-defined policy statements.

I'm just pleased that the government is likely to have a left-ish lean. Doesn't look likely that the Greens will have the influence on Labour I'd like...but never mind. It'll be interesting times, sit back and enjoy the show.

[jrandom]

... in my view, it would be better to consolidate its structure and figure out how to be a political party, not a racial party.

But... thats not going to happen. They're only one step above a single-issue party - they're an upper-limit-constituency party.

No, for the next few decades, the Mäorien will stay right where they are, as a 14% or so chunk of the population with a small but vocal core of relatively non-aggressive (in the molotov cocktail sense, anyway) political separatists. Whitey can let them bleat, chuck them some cash now and then, and generally get on with life. Its probably better to have those extra seats in Parliament and subject our MPs to the occasional offensive rant (in Mäori, perhaps? Or is that only a Court thing?) than to disenfranchise the natives and expose that 14% to the possibility of there vocal separatist core deciding to turn Auckland into Belfast.


... may prove to the rest of the country, and maori themselves, that they can be a political force WITHOUT those special seats.

Hum, disagreed. As above, their only potential vote comes from a minority ethnicity. Apart from that, they'll need to align themselves on the economic and social policy spectrum, which will inevatably remove some of that potential vote. In a couple more generations, when the Mäori blood is even further diluted and the average Mäoris education has levelled with the rest of the population, that ethnic vote will disappear as its members start to involve themselves in the running of the country, proper, instead of just doing what the local kaumatua suggests down t'marae.

[Hitcher]

Bullshit, but fascinating none-the-less...

[Milky]

How do you figure this?
They won 4 Maori seats, no others.

Hence I said 'future success', 'beginning of the end'. As in not the end. Rather the Beginning. Of the End.

They did get 1.98% - more than Act, Progressives and the Alliance. Not exactly illustrious company, but enough to indicate some progress.

[Lou Girardin]

Hence I said 'future success', 'beginning of the end'. As in not the end. Rather the Beginning. Of the End.

They did get 1.98% - more than Act, Progressives and the Alliance. Not exactly illustrious company, but enough to indicate some progress.

I tend to agree with fish. It's a dead end constituency and, unless they achieve miracles, maoridom will be back to Labour in three years.

[Hitcher]

I tend to agree with fish. It's a dead end constituency and, unless they achieve miracles, maoridom will be back to Labour in three years.
Unless the Maori Party leadership demonstrates some vision and throws in its lot with National, instead of Labour.

[Motu]

Unless the Maori Party leadership demonstrates some vision and throws in its lot with National, instead of Labour.

They won't if Brash is there,but he's going to bail anyway,so it's possible....

[Hitcher]

They won't if Brash is there,but he's going to bail anyway,so it's possible....
National, ACT and the Maori Party have similar concerns over the seabed and foreshore. The Labour Party's mind is already made up on this matter -- the major factor behind the establishment of the Maori Party. If the Maori Party leadership doesn't get this, then they are beyond help.

[MacD]

I wouldn't rule out the Maori Party supporting a National-based coalition government. Here's an alternate view.


Now what was I saying!?

NZ Herald today (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10346465)

[Lou Girardin]

National, ACT and the Maori Party have similar concerns over the seabed and foreshore. The Labour Party's mind is already made up on this matter -- the major factor behind the establishment of the Maori Party. If the Maori Party leadership doesn't get this, then they are beyond help.

But the complication is that most Maoris gave their party vote to Labour.
It's quite clear where they want to be.

[Hitcher]

But the complication is that most Maoris gave their party vote to Labour.
It's quite clear where they want to be.
Then they should have voted for a Labour electorate candidate as well. Because subsumed and marginalised the Maori Party shall be if it goes with Labour.