Who will win the 2011 election?

**Banditbandit** · 20th July 2011, 13:09

and at the start of the second section right click and hit "paste" so that the beginning of each quote is repeated. Type what you want into the space between ...

Do it as many times as you need ..

You don't actually need to copy and paste the first [ ] you can run with

Originally Posted by Spearfish

.. Ha!..bugga that I get logged out with simple posts now.

You got it ..

**oldrider** · 20th July 2011, 13:24

This poll reflects the same as those in the local papers etc mostly "undecided" or National.

Just watch the media juggle the electorate until those undecided voters think they should swing over to Labour!

The electorate is so simple to manipulate because under MMP the result is a lucky dip anyway.

Todays politicians are so interchangeable even parties don't really matter any more!

People are losing interest because they feel they can't influence the outcome

prevails more each election!

**Banditbandit** · 20th July 2011, 13:34

Originally Posted by oldrider

This poll reflects the same as those in the local papers etc mostly "undecided" or National.

Just watch the media juggle the electorate until those undecided voters think they should swing over to Labour!

The electorate is so simple to manipulate because under MMP the result is a lucky dip anyway.

Todays politicians are so interchangeable even parties don't really matter any more!

People are losing interest because they feel they can't influence the outcome

prevails more each election!

It will be interesting to see the voter turn-out figures this year .. I suspect you might be wrong ... I hope you're wrong because a big voter turnout generally means a Labor win - a small turnout generally means a National win ..

**shrub** · 20th July 2011, 14:22

Despite having blotted their copybook far too many times to count (dating back to Donna Awatere Huata) and depending on flawed and archaic policies, they will get back in parliament because National have effectively given them Epsom. Personally I think this is the most cynical and corrupt manipulation of the electoral system I have ever seen in NZ and is damn near jerrymandering.

I just hope the people of Epsom realise that National is treating them as a tool to bring Brash et al back.

**short-circuit** · 20th July 2011, 14:52

Originally Posted by shrub

I just hope the people of Epsom realise that National is treating them as a tool to bring Brash et al back.

They won't care about the monkey as long as he's wearing the right colours (excuse the pun)

**Banditbandit** · 20th July 2011, 15:01

Originally Posted by shrub

Despite having blotted their copybook far too many times to count (dating back to Donna Awatere Huata) and depending on flawed and archaic policies, they will get back in parliament because National have effectively given them Epsom. Personally I think this is the most cynical and corrupt manipulation of the electoral system I have ever seen in NZ and is damn near jerrymandering.

I just hope the people of Epsom realise that National is treating them as a tool to bring Brash et al back.

I agree .. so cynical

Originally Posted by short-circuit

They won't care about the monkey as long as he's wearing the right colours (excuse the pun)

Naaa ... I don't think Brash is the right man .. he had his chance and it didn't pay off... I think Labour will take Epsom .. they won't vote Brash and they can't vote Nats - the swingers will vote Labour

**superman** · 20th July 2011, 15:09

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Hmmm .. are you advocating an anarchist system? Looks to me like pure anarcho-syndicalism with a paper-based symbol of value-exchange.

Lol, I'm not advocating that model whatsoever! And you pretty much have it... anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Who told you that was socialism/communism? Its certainly not how I see those systems (and I am neither...)

Again, who told you that was what socialism was? Have you ever read any of the socialist writers?

Karl Marx etc? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_ea...ng_to_his_need

The phrase quoted from Titelman, number II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

I thought this meant that a man would give his all to society, and society would give him what he needed. Not giving those with more ability anything more than those with less of an ability?

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

The canton model resembles anarcho-syndicalism in many ways ...

I kind of see the link, but hardly to the extremity of anarcho-syndicalism.

**short-circuit** · 20th July 2011, 15:11

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Naaa ... I don't think Brash is the right man .. he had his chance and it didn't pay off... I think Labour will take Epsom .. they won't vote Brash and they can't vote Nats - the swingers will vote Labour

I hope you're right but unlike the majority of dumb fuck right whingers here, many in that electorate would stand to gain more (short term) from that retard's appointment.

**shrub** · 20th July 2011, 15:46

Originally Posted by superman

Lol, I'm not advocating that model whatsoever! And you pretty much have it... anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, we used to have a system like that - it was called feudalism and worked the same. It's also called plutocracy.

The problem with capitalism is that by its very nature the ownership of capital and therefore of the means of production becomes confined to a smaller and smaller group of increasingly powerful individuals and voila, you have Michel's iron law of oligarchy proven.

**Banditbandit** · 20th July 2011, 16:54

Originally Posted by superman

Lol, I'm not advocating that model whatsoever! And you pretty much have it... anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Oh .. you're one of THOSE !!! Been listening to Lyndsey Perigo recently ?

Karl Marx etc? Yes.

Among others ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_ea...ng_to_his_need

I'm amused you think Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge ...

The phrase quoted from Titelman, number II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

I thought this meant that a man would give his all to society, and society would give him what he needed. Not giving those with more ability anything more than those with less of an ability?

Yes, close. Every citizen will work for the good of each other - and be paid according to his needs ...

Why do you think that the labour of one person is worth more than the labour of another person deopending on the job they do? It's all labour ...

From each according to his abilities, to eah according to his needs (with apologies for someone else's sexist language ... )

I kind of see the link, but hardly to the extremity of anarcho-syndicalism.

Only a matter of degree - not ideology then?

**superman** · 20th July 2011, 17:24

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

I'm amused you think Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge ...

Why do you think that the labour of one person is worth more than the labour of another person deopending on the job they do? It's all labour ...

Wikipedia is extremely useful for skimming information on a subject. I'm not looking for socialist literature to quote directly.

You're asking for my opinion? Or are you just stating the question socialism asks? To me the idea that a cleaner should get paid as much as a doctor is appalling. However it is unfair if that said cleaner never had the opportunity to become a doctor. So I'd go towards an opportunistic capitalist model, equal opportunities but capitalist driven economies.

**shrub** · 21st July 2011, 09:18

Originally Posted by superman

To me the idea that a cleaner should get paid as much as a doctor is appalling. However it is unfair if that said cleaner never had the opportunity to become a doctor. So I'd go towards an opportunistic capitalist model, equal opportunities but capitalist driven economies.

The example you cite is extremely unlikely to ever occur, and even in communist states skill was rewarded, and I agree, someone who is willing to devote 8 - 10 years of their lives working their arses off deserves to be rewarded. To me the idea that someone who earns a buck from capital gain does not pay tax whereas someone who works and actually produces something does is equally appalling, yet this happens all the time in NZ. Also in NZ we have highly skilled and highly trained nurses, teachers and even doctors earning less than some real estate agents or car salesmen - is that right? I used to be a financial adviser and in 1993 I earned $135k with only a 1 week course behind me, yet my then wife as an occupational therapist with 4 years training earned around $40k, and she worked as hard as I did.

Getting back to your example, it's important to look at backgrounds. I know the right think that where someone comes from is irrelevant, but I look at my 2 kids who have been brought up in a home where education is prized and both of them have been encouraged and coached through school and gaining an advanced education is taken for granted because that's what one does. Then I look at a good mate of mine who left school at 15, spent time in the Mob and prison and is now working as a minimum wage labourer. He pulled his life together and has been out of trouble for 20 years and worked almost solidly in that time and has kids the same age as mine, and probably as bright as mine. One is unemployed, one is on the DPB and one is over the moon because he has a labouring job. When I talked to them about education and training they saw it as something that was for other people. I am working with one of them and basicaly teaching him to read using boy racer magazines, and he is starting to get it, and I have suggested he do pre-trade training as a mechanic. He doesn't think he is bright enough yet, but that's because all his life he has been surrounded by people who don't think they're bright enough/good enough to do something with their lives. If he had been born my son he would be in the middle of his apprenticeship. Same kid, different background.

**oldrider** · 21st July 2011, 09:36

Originally Posted by shrub

The example you cite is extremely unlikely to ever occur, and even in communist states skill was rewarded, and I agree, someone who is willing to devote 8 - 10 years of their lives working their arses off deserves to be rewarded. To me the idea that someone who earns a buck from capital gain does not pay tax whereas someone who works and actually produces something does is equally appalling, yet this happens all the time in NZ. Also in NZ we have highly skilled and highly trained nurses, teachers and even doctors earning less than some real estate agents or car salesmen - is that right? I used to be a financial adviser and in 1993 I earned $135k with only a 1 week course behind me, yet my then wife as an occupational therapist with 4 years training earned around $40k, and she worked as hard as I did.

Getting back to your example, it's important to look at backgrounds. I know the right think that where someone comes from is irrelevant, but I look at my 2 kids who have been brought up in a home where education is prized and both of them have been encouraged and coached through school and gaining an advanced education is taken for granted because that's what one does. Then I look at a good mate of mine who left school at 15, spent time in the Mob and prison and is now working as a minimum wage labourer. He pulled his life together and has been out of trouble for 20 years and worked almost solidly in that time and has kids the same age as mine, and probably as bright as mine. One is unemployed, one is on the DPB and one is over the moon because he has a labouring job. When I talked to them about education and training they saw it as something that was for other people. I am working with one of them and basicaly teaching him to read using boy racer magazines, and he is starting to get it, and I have suggested he do pre-trade training as a mechanic. He doesn't think he is bright enough yet, but that's because all his life he has been surrounded by people who don't think they're bright enough/good enough to do something with their lives. If he had been born my son he would be in the middle of his apprenticeship. Same kid, different background.

You are really a Libertarian in Socialists clothing .... think about what you really say you stand for!

**shrub** · 21st July 2011, 09:51

Originally Posted by oldrider

You are really a Libertarian in Socialists clothing .... think about what you really say you stand for!

I don't fit in any left-right boxes, but then not many people really do. Socialism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive and according to the Political Compass I am Economic Left/Right: -7.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36 which puts me similar to Nelson Mandela (only not as famous). It's a pretty interesting tool.

**Banditbandit** · 21st July 2011, 09:51

Originally Posted by superman

Wikipedia is extremely useful for skimming information on a subject. I'm not looking for socialist literature to quote directly.

You're asking for my opinion? Or are you just stating the question socialism asks? To me the idea that a cleaner should get paid as much as a doctor is appalling. However it is unfair if that said cleaner never had the opportunity to become a doctor. So I'd go towards an opportunistic capitalist model, equal opportunities but capitalist driven economies.

Yes, I was asking for your opinion. Thanks for giving it.

I sit a lot further left - probably even more than Shrub. I think that if the cleaner has no ability to be anything other than a cleaner, then yes, they should be paid somthing similar to the doctor. Both contribute to society in important and necessary roles - why should there be a huge difference in pay? Both are exercising their skills for the benefit of society - why should there be a vast difference in pay?

Now, people might says that there is no incentive to be doctors .. BUT the crunch is around abilioty - if people are NOT giving to society according to their ability then they should be paid less. (Rememebr this fits within a whole system and can't be isolated out )

Why do people need to be rich? In the New Zealand I grew up in ecveryone wanted to be comfortabe - to own their own home, to have children who went to school and got an education and got a good job. I think it was Austin Mitchell who said "everyone in New Zealand wants to be middle classs - even the rich"

Both the cleaner and the doctor need to live comfortably, to have a home to live in to be able to afford the feed the kids and get them an education ... That can't happen in a capitalist society ... and is unlikely to happen in whatever versuion of communism is tried ... the socilaist societies have a better chance of achieving it for everyone ... controls on capitalism - but not communism.

And yes, I agree with Shtrub - life chances are important. We achieve equity by recognizing that and providing better life chances for those who need them ...