Who's voting ACT, apart from me?

[rogson]

If Rodney wins Epsom, which he will, ACT will not have to reach the 5% threshold for it to get proportional representation in parliament.

Do you want; logical environmental policies, tough stance on crime, lower government spending, and a common sense counterpoint to National's drongo MPs in the next government.....then party vote ACT.

[cs363]

If Rodney wins Epsom, which he will, ACT will not have to reach the 5% threshold for it to get proportional representation in parliament.

Do you want; logical environmental policies, tough stance on crime, lower government spending, and a common sense counterpoint to National's drongo MPs in the next governmen.....then party vote ACT.


So...if I'm reading that correctly - that is, that the loyal ACT suporters of Epsom will vote Rodders back to parliament (highly likely I agree)giving ACT representation in parliament then shouldn't the party vote be for National? :whistle: :)

[rogson]

So...if I'm reading that correctly - that is, that the loyal ACT suporters of Epsom will vote Rodders back to parliament (highly likely I agree)giving ACT representation in parliament then shouldn't the party vote be for National? :whistle: :)

Nope.......if Rodney wins Epsom on the electoral vote and ACT gets 1% of the party vote then he will be the lone ACT PM in parliament.

If Rodney wins Epsom on the electoral vote and ACT gets 2% of the party vote, then ACT gets 2 PMs in parliament - Rodney plus the first/next person on the list.

So, if Rodney wins Epsom, more party votes for ACT means more ACT MPs.....period!

[rainman]

Who's voting ACT, apart from me?


Um, no thanks.

Some of their ideas have some merit, but they're just too far off beam on most everything else. Which is why they're only supported by a <5% fringe of libertarian ideologues, and have to depend on being a personality cult to get in.

And the prospect of Sir Rog is just a big big turnoff. :sick:

[Pussy]

Me! Have been since 1996

[cs363]

Me! Have been since 1996


I KNEW there was something funny about you..... :bleh:


Oh well, could be worse - at least your not in bed with Helen.... :sick:

[Quasievil]

And the prospect of Sir Rog is just a big big turnoff. :sick:


If it wasnt For Mr Douglas we would still be living in communist NZ, ie barriers everywhere.
If the current looneys in Labour and National actually let his policies flow we would be in a far better state than the one we are in now, ie revert back to Socialism (semi communist) as we are currently in.

For me Act all the way if only on the following reasons

1/ repell the emissions trading scheme
2/ Reduction in beauracratic state culture
3/ Tough penalties to the crims
4/ Major tax cuts and with it freedom of choice as a person as to where I spend my dollar on the services I need


ACT ALL THE WAY

End of the day Im a realist and reckon we will get sucked backwards by all the stupid gravy train bludgers who suckle on tax payer funded government handouts as well as stupid greenies who dont understand jack which will result in a further degradation of any future possibility for NZ to be a successful economy

[wildpudding]

Ha ha ACT!

What a joke.

[rainman]

If it wasnt For Mr Douglas we would still be living in communist NZ, ie barriers everywhere.


I don't think that means what you think it does.


For me Act all the way if only on the following reasons

1/ repell the emissions trading scheme
2/ Reduction in beauracratic state culture
3/ Tough penalties to the crims
4/ Major tax cuts and with it freedom of choice as a person as to where I spend my dollar on the services I need


1. So what ideas do you have to address climate change? (Note I'm not a major supporter of the ETS as it stands but it is probably better than doing nothing.
2. Might be Ok but the devil is in the details. Who, what, when, how?
3. Yup, I'd possibly support tougher penalties but we already have something like the second highest per capita incarceration rate. Don't fancy having to shell out for more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. How about some prevention?
4. I actually think NZ has fairly low taxes given the level of functionality of public systems. There should always be effort put in to making things as efficient as possible, but Act's cuts are always completely loopy and just sound like populist crap. Have they ever produced a balanced budget showing what would go if they cut tax back to a flat 20% or whatever tosh they're spouting at the moment?


as well as stupid greenies who dont understand jack which will result in a further degradation of any future possibility for NZ to be a successful economy

Depends on how you measure success. The rampant free market isn't working out too well at the moment, to be fair, and we've all (except the very top 1%) been getting poorer for the last little while. If Act had a bit of balance balance between it's current ideological push and a decent approach towards addressing our environmental issues, maybe with something for "middle NZ", they might be a halfway decent party.

[oldrider]

ACT are too far to the left for us but it looks like they will get four votes from our house this time round. :niceone: John.

[jrandom]

So what ideas do you have to address climate change?

Air conditioning?

[rainman]

ACT are too far to the left for us

Sheesh, who would you want in power then if you had a choice? Genghis Khan?

[Jantar]

Sheesh, who would you want in power then if you had a choice? Genghis Khan?

What party is he standing for? :innocent:

[Quasievil]

1. So what ideas do you have to address climate change?

None, because their is no man made climate change its a natural situation, not the first time and wont be the last time the climate has a fluctuation.

Climate change is an excuse to scare people into thinking their is a problem that we need government help to "save our souls" and this will only come in the form of taxes and legislation to gain taxes, such as carbon credit and ETS.......its all B.S
:msn-wink:

[jafar]

None, because their is no man made climate change its a natural situation, not the first time and wont be the last time the climate has a fluctuation.

Climate change is an excuse to scare people into thinking their is a problem that we need government help to "save our souls" and this will only come in the form of taxes and legislation to gain taxes, such as carbon credit and ETS.......its all B.S
:msn-wink:

+1 yep have to agree with you there, the whole carbon tax propaganda exercise is a monumental crock of shit. It is @ best a feeble half arsed excuse to get more tax & then claim it is for the good of the planet.:buggerd:

[Magua]

Do you want; logical environmental policies

Liberatian environmental policies =/= logical. They enevitably fail and require more legislation.

[rainman]

None, because their is no man made climate change its a natural situation, not the first time and wont be the last time the climate has a fluctuation.

Climate change is an excuse to scare people into thinking their is a problem that we need government help to "save our souls" and this will only come in the form of taxes and legislation to gain taxes, such as carbon credit and ETS.......its all B.S
:msn-wink:

So, lemme get this right:

You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)
We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years
The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.
The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!
In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.


If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.

[Jantar]

So, lemme get this right:

...............

If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.

oh dear. How many times do we have to go back over this?


You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)

Yes. The climate is changing. It always has and always will. At the moment it is in a cooling phase consistant with the negative phase of the IPO.


We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years

Yes we do. Around 6% of additional CO2 is emitted by man, but less that 0.05% of all other greenhouse gasses are emitted by man. And CO2 is a very small fraction of all GHGs.


The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.

This is only true if you ignore the research carried out by Beck, and repeated by others since. CO2 levels are high, but not the highest by a long shot, Other GHGs are also high, but not due to man.


The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!

The IPCC are not the ones imposing extra taxes, and if you look at the latest offerings from the IPCC even they are reducing their predictions.


In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.

That would certainly seems to be the latest determination. It started when Mann, Bradley and Hughes had their Hockeystick so debuncked that the IPCC stopped using it. Note it only seems that way, because all the climate scientists who are actually studying climate as opposed to models are now agreeing that global temperature is more closely linked to the IPO and less linked to GHGs.

Incidentally, keeping on top of climate and its effects is part of my job.

[davereid]

Exactly how is putting up my power - petrol - food bills supposed to save the world from China and Americas emissions anyway ?

I can see cold pensioners, kids without lunch, and wealthy traders clipping the trading scheme ticket.

But I can't see the world saved, just a lot of money moved from pocket "A" to pocket "B".

[Quasievil]

So, lemme get this right:

You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)
We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years
The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.
The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!
In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.

If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.

Yup basically mate.

Gore stupid movie is one of the biggest pieces of propaganda the world has EVER known, most took it hook line and sinker.

It isnt the first time earth has warmed up and it wont be the last, the current hysteria is a crock and a major con all structured around making money...........examples Kyoto agreement , Emissions trading scam, Carbo trading etc etc.

where does the money go ??????

[oldrider]

Sheesh, who would you want in power then if you had a choice? Genghis Khan?

My preference (choice) would be closer to "Liberterianz" with "Social credit" monitary reforms in place. :niceone:

Not ever likely to happen (in my lifetime)

The mess we are in now wouldn't have eventuated if my "preference" was in place. :doh: John.

[Magua]

where does the money go ??????
A cap is set at so many tonnes per year. Some companies will be above this target, some will be below. The companies emitting CO2 over what the cap allows will have to buy credits from the companies with excess credits, those that are emitting less than the cap. Rather than a flat tax it's an incentive to do something about emissions, reduce them, and you need to buy less credits.

[Quasievil]

A cap is set at so many tonnes per year. Some companies will be above this target, some will be below. The companies emitting CO2 over what the cap allows will have to buy credits from the companies with excess credits, those that are emitting less than the cap. Rather than a flat tax it's an incentive to do something about emissions, reduce them, and you need to buy less credits.

..............+ gst ?

[Kaituna]

Bring on a couple more Mt Vesuvious or Taupo eruptions I reckon. That will fuck up the GHG predictions. Try taxing that you bastards! Biggest piece of shit legislation to spew forth from the looney pc fringe leftist commies.

[skidMark]

Air conditioning?


Jrandom for the presidency!

[Magua]

..............+ gst ?

Well that's how it's MEANT to work, don't know if they've perverted it with extra taxes here.

[Swoop]

So what ideas do you have to address climate change?
Cordura or a one-piece oversuit.

"global warming":rolleyes:. Global taxing would be closer to the truth.

[davereid]

A cap is set at so many tonnes per year. Some companies will be above this target, some will be below. The companies emitting CO2 over what the cap allows will have to buy credits from the companies with excess credits, those that are emitting less than the cap. Rather than a flat tax it's an incentive to do something about emissions, reduce them, and you need to buy less credits.

A great idea... except that LIVING is a major source of C02.

So, Nations like NZ that have a large proportion of GDP dependent on living animals, farming and food production will get to buy credits from Russia and China, (Who are exempt or get extra credits as they are "developing" nations.)

And somehow, even though the horribly C02 producing sheep, got their carbon from grass, we can't claim grass as a credit.

Cos it doesn't count, cos its TOO SHORT and it NOT A TREE.

Something stinks when the basics of life, like food production are BAD and must be TAXED to save us all from the MONSTER that no one has seen except the emperor.

Still on the bright side, it doesnt matter how expensive food or petrol get, I can afford it.

And my broker has instructions to BUY BUY BUY when shares in NZs trading company come up.

[Magua]

Cos it doesn't count, cos its TOO SHORT and it NOT A TREE.

Well isn't that rediculous. A sink is a sink, isn't it? What's the reasoning behind not including grass? :S

[Ocean1]

Well isn't that rediculous. A sink is a sink, isn't it? What's the reasoning behind not including grass? :S

Whatever the justification it's still a multi-national trade agreement.
The terms of such ALWAYS favour those countries that have the largest markets.

The fact that NZ is, however you measure it, a rather large mitigating influence on carbon balance has absolutely nothing to do with the deals struck at Kyoto, or since.
It's about financial advantage, it always is.

[Kaituna]

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=134031&page=3
Global change...
Read that you greenies and go and hug a volcanic rock.

[Manxman]

None, because their is no man made climate change its a natural situation, not the first time and wont be the last time the climate has a fluctuation.

Climate change is an excuse to scare people into thinking their is a problem that we need government help to "save our souls" and this will only come in the form of taxes and legislation to gain taxes, such as carbon credit and ETS.......its all B.S
:msn-wink:

+2. Said it before...first worldwide tax.

[Trouser]

+2. Said it before...first worldwide tax.

Next step world wide government?

[The Pastor]

Nope.......if Rodney wins Epsom on the electoral vote and ACT gets 1% of the party vote then he will be the lone ACT PM in parliament.

If Rodney wins Epsom on the electoral vote and ACT gets 2% of the party vote, then ACT gets 2 PMs in parliament - Rodney plus the first/next person on the list.

So, if Rodney wins Epsom, more party votes for ACT means more ACT MPs.....period!
so how dose that work? I thought it was 5% per seat?

[Jeremy]

If Rodney wins Epsom, which he will, ACT will not have to reach the 5% threshold for it to get proportional representation in parliament.

Do you want; logical environmental policies, tough stance on crime, lower government spending, and a common sense counterpoint to National's drongo MPs in the next government.....then party vote ACT.

Is that guaranteed though? Epsom's boundaries changed significantly since the last election.

[oldrider]

The Greens are good for one thing only.........COMPOST. :doh: (IMHO) John.

[Jantar]

so how dose that work? I thought it was 5% per seat?
No, its 5% OR a seat. A paty that wins a seat does not have to meet any percentage threshold, and every vote counts. Thus a vote for ACT is more powerful in returning a right wing government than a vote for National.

For tactical voting, in a strong national seat, electrate vote for National, party vote for Act. In a strong Labour seat, electorate vote for Act, party vote for National.

[davereid]

Hmm, so a cunning ploy would be...

Say you are the Labour or National Party.

You look at your safe seats - you might have 30-40 that you think you would win.

You DONT stand an electorate MP in your safe electorates.

You just encourage (or manufacture) a party that supports all your goals, and agrees before the election to vote with you.

You encourage your voters to support your natural partner in the electorate vote as you aren't running a candidate, but give you the party vote.

Thus, you will collect 30-40 electorate MPs.. and the same percentage of the list.

2-for-1 bang.

There is NO Way this would really happen though. The Greens and The Mordies really are different to Labour.

[rachprice]

I agree that 'global warming' is likely to be part of a phasic cycle of the earths climate but I think that programs put in place to decrease pollution still have their merit.
Granted the proposed schemes may not be the best way to go about things but I personally would like to be a part of sustaining the earth for future generations.
Pollution may not be the cause of 'global warming' as such but has been proven to have negative effects on health, most documented being the increase of asthma in urban/highly polluted areas
(bit rich coming from a 2 stroke rider I know!)

Tax cuts? yet people still bitch about our health system, education system etc. if anything, I think tax some more!
I don't think that our welfare system is perfect but its a necessity, not everyone is born into a privileged life.
Just because you get paid more doesn't necessarily mean you work harder either, so why not tax the rich?

[Jantar]

Hmm, so a cunning ploy would be...

Say you are the Labour or National Party.

You look at your safe seats - you might have 30-40 that you think you would win.

You DONT stand an electorate MP in your safe electorates.

Yep. Its been done in one or two electorates in the past to ensure a safe seat for a coalition partner.

[Ocean1]

I agree that 'global warming' is likely to be part of a phasic cycle of the earths climate but I think that programs put in place to decrease pollution still have their merit.
Granted the proposed schemes may not be the best way to go about things but I personally would like to be a part of sustaining the earth for future generations.
Pollution may not be the cause of 'global warming' as such but has been proven to have negative effects on health, most documented being the increase of asthma in urban/highly polluted areas
(bit rich coming from a 2 stroke rider I know!)
rich?

Describe the health benefits involved in living in a bronze aged society.
Health in general is an order of magnitude better than at any time in recorded history.
The reason? Technology. Any restriction in access to technology will produce significant deterioration in health figures.

And yes, if you were serious about the environment you'd at least burn cannola oil. <_<



Tax cuts? yet people still bitch about our health system, education system etc. if anything, I think tax some more!
I don't think that our welfare system is perfect but its a necessity, not everyone is born into a privileged life.
Just because you get paid more doesn't necessarily mean you work harder either, so why not tax the rich?

People bitch about what the six oclock news tells them to bitch about. You know full well what causes the vast majority of "health issues": lifestyle choices.
The same choices that usually make the difference between "privileged" and otherwise.

Besides, all dem privileged dudes, (wot just happen to have BEs and BScs) now reside in Brisbane. Or Brussels, etc etc.
Difficult to levy a success disincentive if'n they're not here anymore, see.

[Pixie]

So, lemme get this right:

You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)
We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years
The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.
The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!
In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.


If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.
Sell your bike and ride a pushy,hippy

[Quasievil]

Tax cuts? yet people still bitch about our health system, education system etc. if anything, I think tax some more!
I don't think that our welfare system is perfect but its a necessity, not everyone is born into a privileged life.
Just because you get paid more doesn't necessarily mean you work harder either, so why not tax the rich?

Hell no !! increase tax take from the government doesnt improve things it makes them worse, we are taxed on a huge scale in NZ and there is more than enough money to pay for everything twice over, the problem is wastage, the beuracracy is a massive and extremely top heavy system so only a fraction of the tax dollar goes into actual bennifit.

Reduce Waste, reduce the government machine, get more choice and bang for your buck VOTE ACT

[rachprice]

Hell no !! increase tax take from the government doesnt improve things it makes them worse, we are taxed on a huge scale in NZ and there is more than enough money to pay for everything twice over, the problem is wastage, the beuracracy is a massive and extremely top heavy system so only a fraction of the tax dollar goes into actual bennifit.

Reduce Waste, reduce the government machine, get more choice and bang for your buck VOTE ACT

Well yeah Im not going to say money isn't spent on things I rather it wouldn't, but Im hugely biased towards our healthcare system

Why is it that some of the Scandinavian countries have the highest tax rates in the world and yet some of the highest standard of living?
Maybe my comment to tax more was somewhat flippant but I definitely don't believe in taxing less

[Quasievil]

Well yeah Im not going to say money isn't spent on things I rather it wouldn't, but Im hugely biased towards our healthcare system

Why is it that some of the Scandinavian countries have the highest tax rates in the world and yet some of the highest standard of living?
Maybe my comment to tax more was somewhat flippant but I definitely don't believe in taxing less

lol its all good mate.

I think its because we forget we have the population of a small city (by international standars) yet we drive a machine of a country, as well as (more importantly so) we have a MASSIVE welfare sytem which has made people dependant on it, we pay millions to bums and scammers willingly.
This is such an incredible drain on our economy whilst present we wont be going anywhere.
Until we change this welfare system health and police and all those important things will take a back seat to putting kfc and cigarettes on Mr and Mrs Rangi's table
(that will get the PC brigade going lol)

[MisterD]

Hmm, so a cunning ploy would be...

Say you are the Labour or National Party.

You look at your safe seats - you might have 30-40 that you think you would win.

You DONT stand an electorate MP in your safe electorates.

You just encourage (or manufacture) a party that supports all your goals, and agrees before the election to vote with you.

You encourage your voters to support your natural partner in the electorate vote as you aren't running a candidate, but give you the party vote.

Thus, you will collect 30-40 electorate MPs.. and the same percentage of the list.

2-for-1 bang.

There is NO Way this would really happen though. The Greens and The Mordies really are different to Labour.

There's no way it would happen on such a large scale, but I have two words for you: Jim Anderton.

[SPman]

lol its all good mate.

I think its because we forget we have the population of a small city (by international standars) yet we drive a machine of a country, ... Hmmmm - Finland pop 5.3m, area 338145 km2 - 16 peeps/km2 NZ pop 4.3m, area 268680 km2. - 15 peeps/km2
I'd say we were fairly similar in size and population, overall.
Then we get to nominal GDP per capita - NZ $30,390, Finland $46,856

:weep: whoops!

[Quasievil]

Hmmmm - Finland pop 5.3m, area 338145 km2 - 16 peeps/km2 NZ pop 4.3m, area 268680 km2. - 15 peeps/km2
I'd say we were fairly similar in size and population, overall.
Then we get to nominal GDP per capita - NZ $30,390, Finland $46,856

:weep: whoops!

You forgot to mention the rest of my post which related to the HUGE WELFARE drain on NZ economy, how is Finlands welfare state scenario in relation to NZ welfare complete state?

[Magua]

You forgot to mention the rest of my post which related to the HUGE WELFARE drain on NZ economy, how is Finlands welfare state scenario in relation to NZ welfare complete state?

I'd say it's more an issue of location and access to markets. End of the earth vs. northern fringe of europe.

[slofox]

How can you vote for a man who wears a yellow jacket.........?

[Magua]

How can you vote for a man who wears a yellow jacket.........?

And drives a smart car? :D

[Quasievil]

I'd say it's more an issue of location and access to markets. End of the earth vs. northern fringe of europe.

Oh yeah that to, + a whole bunch of other stuff to Im sure