Referendum on Asset Sales

[oldrider]

"who's going to choose or do we all vote on it?" Yes we do, every election.

We may vote but do we really choose the government and therefore the policies that we support? NO!

We go to an election and vote for politicians and political parties to give them "permission to try to form a government"!

That is the point where all this begins and is sustained ... the election, a flawed system that results in guaranteed confusion and dissatisfaction with the result!

The only apparent satisfaction gained from our electoral system is when an unpopular incumbent coalition is voted "out"!

The voters (the electorate) have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the election will be or who will govern and how they will govern.

The politicians sort that out amongst themselves by pledging concessions and allegiances to each other not to us the electors!

The politicians and parties that are eventually reduced to the less lucrative opposition benches spend their energies trying to drum up support by wasting money on destructive activities like the referendum to try to embarrass and distract the incumbent coalition from succeeding with their stated objectives!

Is that really constructive opposition ... will this system really provide us with stable government of the majority ... or will it simply sustain guaranteed future chaos?

[Clockwork]

Who know's. all I know is if they want to sit on their arse they should be happy with what they get or should I sit on my arse and complain if I don't get to ride a new bike every year, or go oversea's and ride there.

It's called up skilling, while working carry on studying to get to the next level. if you don't want to then try and find an employer that pays better.

I would say make the beneficiary work for it and pay the employee more. who knows they might learn a skill that they can find a job with.

We are a country of "we want the cheapest" so most manufacturing has moved overseas and for local company's to compete they have to lower costs, either lower wages or less staff.

I'd pretty much agree with all you've said here. The system is not perfect and could certainly stand improvement, all I'm saying is that I can't see that a Free Market, libertarian, low-tax, survival of the fitest economy will provide a better outcome for the majority in the future when it hasn't in the past.

[Clockwork]

We may vote but do we really choose the government and therefore the policies that we support? NO!

We go to an election and vote for politicians and political parties to give them "permission to try to form a government"!

That is the point where all this begins and is sustained ... the election, a flawed system that results in guaranteed confusion and dissatisfaction with the result!

The only apparent satisfaction gained from our electoral system is when an unpopular incumbent coalition is voted "out"!

The voters (the electorate) have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the election will be or who will govern and how they will govern.

The politicians sort that out amongst themselves by pledging concessions and allegiances to each other not to us the electors!

The politicians and parties that are eventually reduced to the less lucrative opposition benches spend their energies trying to drum up support by wasting money on destructive activities like the referendum to try to embarrass and distract the incumbent coalition from succeeding with their stated objectives!

Is that really constructive opposition ... will this system really provide us with stable government of the majority ... or will it simply sustain guaranteed future chaos?

But as you say, if what we vote for is not neccesarliy what we get, then is it such a stretch to accept that just because National got enough vote's to form a Government, that it doesn't follow that the majority of taxpayers "owners" if you will" are happy to see those assests sold. If as you say, you want more say in what the Governement does, then what was wrong with starting with a referendum? So it cost $9 mill (which is rock-all in the scheme of things and probably not real money to boot). The only reason it was a waste of money was because the Government said... "regardless of the vote, fuck you, we're selling anyway!"

So, who wasted the money, the voters/Opposition or the Government?

[MisterD]

all I'm saying is that I can't see that a Free Market, libertarian, low-tax, survival of the fitest economy will provide a better outcome for the majority in the future when it hasn't in the past.

Like it's ever been tried. We've certainly never had a proper free market here, this country is addicted to government regulation.

It's a funny thing about a certain kind of lefty, they scream for government to regulate and they hate big corporations, but can't see that corporations love regulation because it's such an effective barrier to small, innovative competitors.

[Clockwork]

Like it's ever been tried. We've certainly never had a proper free market here, this country is addicted to government regulation.

It's a funny thing about a certain kind of lefty, they scream for government to regulate and they hate big corporations, but can't see that corporations love regulation because it's such an effective barrier to small, innovative competitors.

Well that depends entirely on the regulation and who "paid" for them. Do you have something in mind? I'd like to hear about it.

[MisterD]

Well that depends entirely on the regulation and who "paid" for them. Do you have something in mind? I'd like to hear about it.

My favourite example of the moment is Bitcoin, a pretty libertarian free-market thing really (give or take the attachment many libertarian / Austrian-leaning types have to gold) , it exists outside of government regulation at the moment but many people are happy, in a willing buyer & willing seller kind of way, to use it as a medium of exchange.

In this case, and the reason I think it's such a neat example, the threatened monopoly interest is the government itself. The calls to regulate are starting already, and the pretext will be to "protect people" (it always is) but the object is to stamp out the competition.

[oldrider]

But as you say, if what we vote for is not neccesarliy what we get, then is it such a stretch to accept that just because National got enough vote's to form a Government, that it doesn't follow that the majority of taxpayers "owners" if you will" are happy to see those assests sold. If as you say, you want more say in what the Governement does, then what was wrong with starting with a referendum? So it cost $9 mill (which is rock-all in the scheme of things and probably not real money to boot). The only reason it was a waste of money was because the Government said... "regardless of the vote, fuck you, we're selling anyway!"

So, who wasted the money, the voters/Opposition or the Government?

Probably all of the above!

If that is your opinion then to you it is valid and fair enough I am not arguing with you on that in my previous post so much as is it a symptom of a faulty process?

My first real introduction to these referendum was the one on law and order in 1999 where Helen Clark totally ignored the wishes of a "vast number of electors" and declared that she and her government knew what was best for us! Bloody hell! (Was I ever pissed off with that one!)

Nothing has changed although this one was a "political party driven referendum" rather than a plain citizens referendum! (a new trend?)

I have always been pissed off by the vagaries of the FPP electoral system since the Social Credit party gained 21% of the vote and scored 2 seats in parliament!

I did not however like the devious way that MMP was foisted upon us or the current circus that poses as a democratic election by the people for the people!

The current system is never going to give satisfaction to anyone except those who belong to the coalition of the time and they will sell their souls for membership!

A and B at loggerheads for the benefit of C ... where "C" = those who gain power from the continued state of chaos between A and B (the banking system for instance?)

Do you actually know anybody who satisfied that our electoral system delivers fair, equitable and transparent results?

I could accept MMP more if the political parties and politicians were more directly accountable to the electorate instead of to each other!

Also the electorate is the level that needs to be where the government is directly decided not by default among the self interested politicians and party leaders!

[Clockwork]

My favourite example of the moment is Bitcoin, a pretty libertarian free-market thing really (give or take the attachment many libertarian / Austrian-leaning types have to gold) , it exists outside of government regulation at the moment but many people are happy, in a willing buyer & willing seller kind of way, to use it as a medium of exchange.

In this case, and the reason I think it's such a neat example, the threatened monopoly interest is the government itself. The calls to regulate are starting already, and the pretext will be to "protect people" (it always is) but the object is to stamp out the competition.

Regulate it how? What competion, from who? I'm not disputing what you say cause I know bog all about it but at a guess I'd say the Banks want it stamped out because they don't get a cut. The Governament wants to ensure it get's its cut of any taxes, such as GST, The Reserve Bank probably want's it controlled because if half the country's economey is traded throught it the would stuff up their stats and make it very difficult to manage the economoy. The Police would want to ensure that the proceeds of crime arn't laundered through it and the American would want to ensure thet Terrorism wasn't being funded through it, but appart from the tax aviodance issues I don't see why the "lefties" in particular would be behind such regulations.

[Clockwork]

Probably all of the above!

If that is your opinion then to you it is valid and fair enough I am not arguing with you on that in my previous post so much as is it a symptom of a faulty process?

My first real introduction to these referendum was the one on law and order in 1999 where Helen Clark totally ignored the wishes of a "vast number of electors" and declared that she and her government knew what was best for us! Bloody hell! (Was I ever pissed off with that one!)

Nothing has changed although this one was a "political party driven referendum" rather than a plain citizens referendum! (a new trend?)

I have always been pissed off by the vagaries of the FPP electoral system since the Social Credit party gained 21% of the vote and scored 2 seats in parliament!

I did not however like the devious way that MMP was foisted upon us or the current circus that poses as a democratic election by the people for the people!

The current system is never going to give satisfaction to anyone except those who belong to the coalition of the time and they will sell their souls for membership!

A and B at loggerheads for the benefit of C ... where "C" = those who gain power from the continued state of chaos between A and B (the banking system for instance?)

Do you actually know anybody who satisfied that our electoral system delivers fair, equitable and transparent results?

I could accept MMP more if the political parties and politicians were more directly accountable to the electorate instead of to each other!

Also the electorate is the level that needs to be where the government is directly decided not by default among the self interested politicians and party leaders!

I think MPP is better than FPP, at least with MMP Social Credit would have got 21% of the seats!!

I also think MMP could stand improvement and the results of the last review should have been implemented but self serving and cowardly Politicians saw that off. (Aint it always so?)

[mashman]

In this case, and the reason I think it's such a neat example, the threatened monopoly interest is the government itself.

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa... yeah, it's the govt monopoly of money creation that's being threatened. You can't honestly believe that shite?

[Zedder]

I want to engage in a rational debate but I'm a sensitive sole and I was a little hurt by the tone of your reply so try to imagine that I'm 2m tall, 300kgs of seething muscle, I have a bad attitude, a club with a nail through it and we are having this debate face to face in a dark pub car park. That way we can both be sure that your response will not contain any gratuitous ad homonyms

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

[oldrider]

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

Is that with a Christmas cheer or an ouch?

[Zedder]

Is that with a Christmas cheer or an ouch?

Well, 'cos it's imaginary, it can be anything you like...

[Clockwork]

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

Sorry, got distracted.

I honestly don't know too much about it other that it seems to work well for them. They may well have more of a social conscience with less pressure for tax cuts from the wealthier and/or more social resposibility from their beneficiaries.

Put that finger away, you may need it later.

[Clockwork]

Further thoughts....

Maybe its because Murdoch can't speak any norse languages so never bought into any part of their media?