Bradfordism: Bill for referendum due to bill

**Marmoot** · 17th June 2009, 16:22

Sue Bradford is just an amazing political machine that never tires. Maybe all our MPs should follow her example of dedication.

Another bill from Sue Bradford? The last one triggered this referendum and now she wants to have another bill to respond to this referendum, which was originally caused by her? All these debacle wouldn't have happened had she thought before opening her mouth in the beginning. MPs who waste our time and tax money on such things need to be expelled.

**The Stranger:Me** · 17th June 2009, 16:31

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Sue Bradford is just an amazing political machine that never tires. Maybe all our MPs should follow her example of dedication.

Another bill from Sue Bradford? The last one triggered this referendum and now she wants to have another bill to respond to this referendum, which was originally caused by her? All these debacle wouldn't have happened had she thought before opening her mouth in the beginning. MPs who waste our time and tax money on such things need to be expelled.

"Ms Bradford said the wording of the referendum had been a shock and ambiguous questions should not be allowed."

But presumably ambiguous laws (unnecessary speed or acceleration, noise and boy racer laws for example) are just fine.

**HenryDorsetCase** · 17th June 2009, 16:33

that fucking cooze never tires of spending my goddamn money, huh? Maybe I should just marry her, divorce her, and buy her a goodamn house?

**Mully** · 17th June 2009, 16:37

Did no-one tell her what happened in November??

FUCK OFF SUE - YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION NOW, MORON.

**Skyryder** · 17th June 2009, 16:52

Prime Minister John Key has indicated the Government could review the rules for referendums after growing criticism of the question in the postal ballot, to be held from July 31 to August 21.

Mr. Key said the wording was ambiguous and it would "make sense" to look at whether stricter rules for referendums were needed.

Labour leader Phil Goff said he would not vote in the ballot because the question did not make sense. "The question implies that if you vote `yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents actually nobody believes that."
UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne said the wording was "bewildering".

From

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ing-poll-words

I know it’s fashionable to blame Bradford for this but I suspect she has correctly interpreted the current thinking in Parliament. Either that or she is now Keys puppet and introducing bills taht the Nats would not dare too. Don't belive me??

Watch them support this

Skyryder

**xwhatsit** · 17th June 2009, 17:40

It is an exceptionally poorly-worded referendum question. No doubt about it. Breaks all kinds of principles they have in statistics about interviewer bias, selection errors etc.

Dunno what should be done about that though... it's what the people asked for. And you have to allow people to propose whatever referendum they want, provided they get the signatures for it, as that's how democracy should be. If you start having committees which alter the wording then that's open to all kinds of government influence... the last thing you want.

But on the other hand -- this being an extreme example, of course -- man, what a waste of money putting up such an ineffective referendum question.

Maybe the principles of democracy are important enough that they shouldn't be diluted to save a few million dollars? Who knows?

**RantyDave** · 17th June 2009, 17:44

I don't get this, there's nothing wrong with the law around referenda. If someone can get 10% of the population to sign a petition asking for a referendum on whether or not the sky should be painted pink, then we should have a referendum on it. All this current referendum proves is that somehow 300,000 people thought the rest of New Zealand (including both party leaders) would fall for such a spectacularly transparent attempt at a con job.

I guess we'll see.

Dave

**HenryDorsetCase** · 17th June 2009, 17:48

the problem is democracy.

It just doesnt work.

I am going to seize power, and rule with an iron fist in an iron glove while wearing an iron jockstrap.

in the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan "Suffer in yer jocks".

I'm thinking some sort of plutocracy, with me as the plutarch, and everyone else as serfs, nubiles, or technocrats.

Who's with me??

**RantyDave** · 17th June 2009, 17:49

Originally Posted by xwhatsit

Maybe the principles of democracy are important enough that they shouldn't be diluted to save a few million dollars?

Yeah, I'd agree with that. The people who proposed this referendum are idiots, but people's individual right to be idiots is worth defending.

In related news the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) are currently defending someone who wants to register the license plate "ACLUSUX". Same principle.

Dave

**RantyDave** · 17th June 2009, 17:51

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

I am going to seize power, and rule with an iron fist in an iron glove while wearing an iron jockstrap.

...with fireworks on the end.

"FEAR ME, PEONS!! ffssssshhhhhhHHHHHHHH!!"

or something like that

Dave

**Oakie** · 17th June 2009, 17:51

There's just one word too many in the question. I can't remember what it is but it's the adjective before the word 'parenting'. It's something along the lines of "a smack being part of good parenting". If they took that adjective out I believe the question would be more acceptable to a wider range of people.

**Skyryder** · 17th June 2009, 17:54

Originally Posted by Oakie

There's just one word too many in the question. I can't remember what it is but it's the adjective before the word parenting. It's something along the lines of a "smack being part of good parenting". If they took that adjective out I believe the question would be more acceptable to a wider range of people.

I think those that framed the wording have been too clever for their own good.

It's not the yes or no that I'm interested in it's how many will not vote.

Skyryder

**Marmoot** · 17th June 2009, 18:45

Everyone focuses on the wording of the referendum, but no one is smart enough to focus on why the referendum had to happen.

If there hadn't been a Bradford, there wouldn't have been any of this.

Besides, the question is clear as it is. Only Asians who doesn't speak English well may not understand it. Unless some kiwis are really that bad in English or just that plain thick.

**The Stranger:Me** · 17th June 2009, 18:56

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Besides, the question is clear as it is.
Unless some kiwis are really that bad in English or just that plain thick.

Ok, ok, I was too scared to admit it.
It (the question) appears abundantly clear to me.

I'm afraid to ask.
Given so many find it ambiguous, does this mean I'm just too stupid to see it?

**rphenix** · 17th June 2009, 19:37

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Sue Bradford is just an amazing political machine that never tires. Maybe all our MPs should follow her example of dedication.

Another bill from Sue Bradford? The last one triggered this referendum and now she wants to have another bill to respond to this referendum, which was originally caused by her? All these debacle wouldn't have happened had she thought before opening her mouth in the beginning. MPs who waste our time and tax money on such things need to be expelled.

Can we have some sort of referendum to get rid of Sue Bradford before the next election?