Who will win the 2011 election?

**Oscar** · 19th August 2011, 09:56

Originally Posted by shrub

If what they did was perfectly acceptable, then why was it hidden? Maybe it's because I'm a parent, but when someone is trying to hide something I get a little suspicious.

And I agree, Labour have had a long connection with the Ratana church, but there is a huge difference between a very public relationship with a group that are openly lobbying for the interests of their members and a clandestine relationship with a group that is not interested in advancing the interests of their members, but is instead committed to imposing their archaic religious views by blocking the ability for legitimate challenges to occur in the house of representatives. A house of representatives that they don't vote for.

The reason it was hidden is because it's a reclusive religion.
I'm not saying I liked it, but you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

Besides if it's groups imposing their archane beliefs on us you want, there are much better practitioners about than these amateurs. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have long influenced political parties from within the system in such a way that the average voter would not be aware.

Hell, we have a system that dictates the religion of our Head of State!

**oneofsix** · 19th August 2011, 10:00

Originally Posted by Oscar

The reason it was hidden is because it's a reclusive religion.
I'm not saying I liked it, but you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

Besides if it's groups imposing their archane beliefs on us you want, there are much better practitioners about than these amateurs. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have long influenced political parties from within the system in such a way that the average voter would not be aware.

Hell, we have a system that dictates the religion of our Head of State!

Exclusive is one thing being two faced is another. They don't vote because they don't believe in the process etc but they want to tell us how to vote?!

**shrub** · 19th August 2011, 10:38

Originally Posted by Oscar

The reason it was hidden is because it's a reclusive religion.
I'm not saying I liked it, but you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

Besides if it's groups imposing their archane beliefs on us you want, there are much better practitioners about than these amateurs. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have long influenced political parties from within the system in such a way that the average voter would not be aware.

Hell, we have a system that dictates the religion of our Head of State!

We're getting off topic becayse that was 6 years ago, but perhaps my last comment is that the brethren wanting to keep themselves to themselves is fine, but if that's the case why distribute hundreds of thousands of brochures? And why did brash and the National party work so hard to keep it under wraps? Ultimately it was an example of a small group of people who potentially could have changed the result of a general election through covert activities that were designed to manipulate voter behaviour. They were amateurs though, and that's why it failed.

**Bald Eagle** · 19th August 2011, 10:40

Originally Posted by Oscar

you can't exclude a group from the democratic process just because you think they're creepy.

!

If we did that there would be not be many groups in the democratic process.

**Oscar** · 19th August 2011, 11:30

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Exclusive is one thing being two faced is another. They don't vote because they don't believe in the process etc but they want to tell us how to vote?!

There are lots of people telling you how to vote.
There are multi-national companies trying to influence your vote.
How is that different to the Brethren?

**Oscar** · 19th August 2011, 11:32

Originally Posted by shrub

We're getting off topic becayse that was 6 years ago, but perhaps my last comment is that the brethren wanting to keep themselves to themselves is fine, but if that's the case why distribute hundreds of thousands of brochures? And why did brash and the National party work so hard to keep it under wraps? Ultimately it was an example of a small group of people who potentially could have changed the result of a general election through covert activities that were designed to manipulate voter behaviour. They were amateurs though, and that's why it failed.

I still can't see how a Church trying to change social policy is that big a deal.
Is the fact their Elders tell them not to vote any different from Priests telling their flock how to vote?

**shrub** · 19th August 2011, 11:35

Originally Posted by Oscar

I still can't see how a Church trying to change social policy is that big a deal.
Is the fact their Elders tell them not to vote any different from Priests telling their flock how to vote?

No, it's not. WHat is a big deal is that it was done so secretively and worst of all that Don Brash actively participated and then lied about it.

**Oscar** · 19th August 2011, 11:42

Originally Posted by shrub

No, it's not. WHat is a big deal is that it was done so secretively and worst of all that Don Brash actively participated and then lied about it.

Although I think that the Labour reaction to the situation verged on anti-democratic, in hindsight I am quite happy that Brash didn't get his hands on the treasury benches.

**shrub** · 19th August 2011, 11:45

Originally Posted by Oscar

Although I think that the Labour reaction to the situation verged on anti-democratic,

How so? And I agree, we are lucky he was kept out.

**Oscar** · 19th August 2011, 11:47

Originally Posted by shrub

How so? And I agree, we are lucky he was kept out.

He was too far right and socially devisive for my taste (as his subsequent takeover of ACT showed).

**shrub** · 19th August 2011, 12:06

Originally Posted by Oscar

He was too far right and socially devisive for my taste (as his subsequent takeover of ACT showed).

Sorry, I meant how was it undemocratic of Labour to call him to account?

**Winston001** · 19th August 2011, 13:29

Originally Posted by Oscar

Although I think that the Labour reaction to the situation verged on anti-democratic..

What happened was the law regarding political statements was severely proscribed - Electoral Finance Act 2007. It was anti-democratic because it suppressed support for any party unless the organiser specified their name and details.

The result was that the last election was the most boring and muted I can ever recall. Right up to election day it almost seemed as if it wasn't happening - everyone was afraid to publicly comment. Fortunately the law has been repealed.

**puddytat** · 19th August 2011, 14:23

Originally Posted by Oscar

On a slightly different note - I see "Who the fuck cares" outpolls Labour by over three to one. I hope Phil has his retirement mapped out...

might be 'cause there wasnt an "other" option

**Oscar** · 19th August 2011, 19:57

Originally Posted by shrub

Sorry, I meant how was it undemocratic of Labour to call him to account?

The Brethren were perfectly entitled to advertise as they did - right of free speech 'n all. And it's not like they disclose what they promise the unions for their support.