Congratulations 48%

[mashman]

I am saying that if they did what was truly needed they would be voted out in a heart beat. To many are stupidly swayed by vote bribes.

Why would they be voted out if they're doing what needs to be done?

You only gave your selfish ME FIRST "definition" ...

I gave an opinion in light of there being no definition. Are you a lawyer?

As I understand it ... for some reason ... ... only VALID votes are counted ...

I would struggle to have confidence in a "No Confidence" party ...

So put "No Confidence" on the paper and let me cast a valid vote for what I (and others) believe.

So even though you don't know what the No Confidence party stands for, the name would put you off? Ahhh, the pathetic standards of voters these days... can't say I'm surprised.

But there WAS a high result in vote numbers ... for ONE political party ...

And?

They are only HUMAN ... apparently ...

Are they? Agent Smiths definition might be more appropriate.

Yes ... much better to let others do it all ... eh ... ???

Cooperatives work ... but only if EVERYBODY is cooperative ...

And I think would clash with your personal "Me First" policy thoughts ...

I would expect those who want the responsibility and are equipped for it would be the right people for the job... heart in the right place being a pre-requisite. (most of that rules me out)

So you wouldn't be cooperative? And not everyone would have to be cooperative, just the majority apparently.

why would I suggest a cooperative if it was against my policy thoughts? Have you been on the sauce this morning? ME FIRST doesn't work.

[mashman]

There was a low voter turnout at this election. In a moderate democracy like NZ this tells us many people aren't satisfied with the status quo. In other words the non-voters think radical changes are necessary so they don't bother, as no party offers this.

I've changed, and added to the above to mirror my own selfish perspective on not voting. Perhaps others share a similar view.

[BoristheBiter]

Why would they be voted out if they're doing what needs to be done?

.

I gave you more credit than having to explain that.

[mashman]

I gave you more credit than having to explain that.

some of the boys and girls might not know the answer...

Why would they be voted out after being voted in by the majority, policies and intentions known etc... why all of a sudden would they be voted out after having such a land-slide victory?

I want to read you saying it

[davereid]

An interesting twist may develop from this.

National are claiming that they have a mandate to sell assets, as they won the election.

It seems that if Labour win the next election, and Mr. Cunliffe is p.m. he will use legislation to Nationalise them, claiming the same mandate I would imagine.

The interesting thing about selling the shares is that you get market price. When you Nationalise them, its done by regulation. The government can simply name the price it will pay, if any.

On TV1 this morning Mr Cunliffe said "I don't stand for a paler shade of blue, and I want to look down the barrel and say this: if the Government is going to sell off precious state assets then we would not rule out re-nationalising some of them. And people need to be aware of that regulatory risk.''

IMHO This is a clear threat that nationalisation were it to occur would not necessarily be at market value.

He seems to be saying - "buy these shares if you want.. but be aware we haven't ruled out just passing a law to simply take them back"

[Hitcher]

Mr. Cunliffe is p.m. he will use legislation to Nationalise them

Silent T has to become the leader of a political party first.

[FJRider]

Why would they be voted out if they're doing what needs to be done?

Perhaps ... because what needs to be done, is not always what the majority (there's that word again) want ...

I gave an opinion in light of there being no definition. Are you a lawyer?

In light of there being no definition of the "no confidence" option you (and others) suggested ... and your opinion is that that an individual voters option, suggests to me ... is more important than the countrys option as a whole ... and no I'm not. But thank you for asking ...

So put "No Confidence" on the paper and let me cast a valid vote for what I (and others) believe.

As I understand ... only valid votes for the listed political party are counted towards the final outcome. The "no confidence" option as a valid vote ... would be counted ... but as they were NOT for a listed political party ... do not count towards the final outcome.

As I see it ... just a big a waste of time as not voting ... (much the same as going to the toilet and just sitting there ....)

So even though you don't know what the No Confidence party stands for,

YOU can't even give me a definitition of what it means ...

the name would put you off? Ahhh, the pathetic standards of voters these days... can't say I'm surprised.

An ironic name for a party anyway ... and from a declared (pathetic) NON voter ... I find your comment a little hypocritical ... at the very least ...

And?

The VOTERS have spoken ... dont like it ... maybe in three years ... VOTE for change ...

I would expect those who want the responsibility and are equipped for it would be the right people for the job... heart in the right place being a pre-requisite. (most of that rules me out)

why would I suggest a cooperative if it was against my policy thoughts? Have you been on the sauce this morning? ME FIRST doesn't work.

The individual (me first) policys were your suggestion ... and I know they wont work.

If you dont like the system we have ... vote for change ...

Why would you suggest (etc) ... it beats the hell out of me too, you as a declared "me first" non voter ... that wants others to do all the hard work ... only ONE reason comes to light. Lazyness ...

I dont know why you bother ... oh I forgot ... you didn't ...

[avgas]

holy fuck. I completely forgot to cry over this.


Damn! My tears might have made some difference.

Thank dog there are so many cry babies out there who will keep the river flowing for the rest of us. What on earth would we do without those brave souls

Probably the same as what we would do without politicians Hang on, perhaps we would do more without both these groups

On a side note, according to KB law this thread should be closed. And the topic of politics be placed in the same realms as religion and fine alcohol (Ironically "sports" is still a free topic).

This topic is getting more attention than a voting both on election day........

[FJRider]

On a side note, according to KB law this thread should be closed. And the topic of politics be placed in the same realms as religion

John Key is god now ... He got the mandate last weekend ...

[avgas]

Considering the recent announcement of a grant for research on porn ... the study of non-voters may be a reasonable subject (money spinner) for an enterprising person to begin ...

I past years, attempts by some parties to boost registered numbers, and take them to the polling stations ... usually more a PR exercise ... result. Than more votes ... result for them.

Weather pays a big part in voter turnout ... (rain and numbers are down) but fine weather prevailed ...

I think the non-voters must just be happy with their lot ...

Oh are you going soft and starting to listen?
Yeah I have always wondered how come I can screw people the world over from the comforts of home, but to do it to a politician I need to get off my arse and visit a school.
I think I have a solution, people don't watch the 7's for the rugby......perhaps we make voting like going to the rugby 7's. Everyone gets dresses up, everyone gets hammered.
Sounds like a great idea, unlike those crap parties National and Labour run. Was there even alcohol there this year?

[davereid]

Silent T has to become the leader of a political party first.

Indeed. But he was sitting with the other David when he made the statement, and he actually said "we" not "I".

It may be that the view is shared by others - Nationalisation is after all a darling of the left.

I'd also comment that, vocally and repeatedly making the threat would depress the value of the shares. Why buy them if the left have already told you they will seize them back at their valuation as soon as they are in government ?

Thats win-win for the left. They can claim the Nats got their figures wrong, and the assets were sold for petty cash.

And should they nationalise them at some stage in the future, and they choose to make a token effort at purchasing the shares, they would be able to value them at petty cash.

[mashman]

Perhaps ... because what needs to be done, is not always what the majority (there's that word again) want ...

As mentioned to Boris. You have only just voted them in knowing their policies and intentions... now you're moaning and bitching about them.

In light of there being no definition of the "no confidence" option you (and others) suggested ... and your opinion is that that an individual voters option, suggests to me ... is more important than the countrys option as a whole ... and no I'm not. But thank you for asking ...

Not at all. If there was an option available of "No Confidence" and it won the election... surely that would highlight that there's something wrong. And as the No Confidence party wouldn't be allowed to govern, the parry with the most votes would govern. I fail to see the point in not having it on the paper, unless of course it gives the voters something to bitch about. Damn that's the second time I've used that work.

As I understand ... only valid votes for the listed political party are counted towards the final outcome. The "no confidence" option as a valid vote ... would be counted ... but as they were NOT for a listed political party ... do not count towards the final outcome.

I'm fine with that if you are.

As I see it ... just a big a waste of time as not voting ... (much the same as going to the toilet and just sitting there ....)

Why a waste of time? It's not your time that would be wasted, why should you care? At least I'd get to get vote for something I believed and didn;t just settle for something I'm gonna bitch about a week or so later.

YOU can't even give me a definitition of what it means ...

I gave you a definition and you didn't like it.

An ironic name for a party anyway ... and from a declared (pathetic) NON voter ... I find your comment a little hypocritical ... at the very least ...

I'm not the one bitching about the parry I voted for.

The VOTERS have spoken ... dont like it ... maybe in three years ... VOTE for change ...

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

The individual (me first) policys were your suggestion ... and I know they wont work.

Where are these "me first" policies you keep talking about? I haven't seen any.

If you dont like the system we have ... vote for change ...

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

Why would you suggest (etc) ... it beats the hell out of me too, you as a declared "me first" non voter ... that wants others to do all the hard work ... only ONE reason comes to light. Lazyness ...

I dont know why you bother ... oh I forgot ... you didn't ...

I didn't say anything beat the hell out of me.

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper. Seems to be a recurring theme, along with your bitching about the party that won the majority vote

[FROSTY:Me]

Would the ego's of the politicians allow such a thing as a vote of no confidence on a ballot paper? personally I think not

[rainman]

Or maybe someone should tell labour that there is only so much money to give away on election bribes?
Or someone should tell those claiming a benefit who expect more.

Both parties are fond of election bribes; only one of them gives them to people you don't like.

Either way, that's a poor comeback to the original point - being that governments who try to run countries like businesses are thick.

See that's what makes you, and quite a lot more, stupid voters. The ones that are targeted when they release these stupid, blatant vote bribes..
..
I have voted National every election because I like what the party is about

I'm with you on the first part of this - voting for "what's in it for me" is a good way of entrenching the populist vote-buying bullshit.
But I'm not with you on the second, and wouldn't be even if you said you voted Labour every election. You're defending tribal voting, binding the party to your personal identity, essesntially. This is ultimately lazy and is the kind of shit that leads to a majority regularly electing McCully because of the colour of his poster, despite him being a useless twat who does nothing for them.

I'd suggest the best way to vote is issues-based,considering the circumstances of the present reality we find ourselves in, as well as the past performance of the party and people on offer. Then pick the least worst. (I don't have much sympathy for the non-voters either).

[FJRider]

As mentioned to Boris. You have only just voted them in knowing their policies and intentions... now you're moaning and bitching about them.

I'm not bitching at all ... quite happy actually.

Not at all. If there was an option available of "No Confidence" and it won the election... surely that would highlight that there's something wrong. And as the No Confidence party wouldn't be allowed to govern, the parry with the most votes would govern. I fail to see the point in not having it on the paper, unless of course it gives the voters something to bitch about. Damn that's the second time I've used that work.

It COULD be a political party ... if the required funds were put up prior to the election (non refundable ... only if the party doesn't get a seat) Do you think any would front with the money ... ???

I'm fine with that if you are.

FINE by me ...

Why a waste of time? It's not your time that would be wasted, why should you care? At least I'd get to get vote for something I believed and didn;t just settle for something I'm gonna bitch about a week or so later.

Be one of the 28,000 (random figurethat voted "no confidence" ... you ... not bitch

I gave you a definition and you didn't like it.[/QUOTE]

No ... you gave an opinion ...

I'm not the one bitching about the parry I voted for.

Actually ... I'm quite happy with the way things turned out ...

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

As the added cost to the tax paying public ... for no valid result (apart from pleasing a small number of people ...) I fail to see how and why it would happen. Excluding the formation of a "No Confidence Party" of course ...

Where are these "me first" policies you keep talking about? I haven't seen any.

I was referring to the policys for the individual that you mentioned should be introduced. WHATthis entails ... I have no idea ...

I will if there is a "No Confidence" option, or a variation of on the ballot paper.

And break your voting tradition ... don't do it for me ...