Support NZ Business - yeh right !!!!

[pete376403]

it's a election year & most of the voting public won't see the fallout of the destroyed economy until after the election and the incompetent are returned to power, this applies to many governments worldwide as there a few important elections due this year.
But if they did nothing and great aunt Mavis dropped dead of COVID-19 that is a direct result of there incompetence and voters will then vote for the opposition as a form of protest vote as emotions impact voters decisions, the destroyers of the economy don't get back into power & can't hide their incompetence.

The scary issue for most of the tax paying middle classes is that the economic issues will be payed for in the future & yes we will be pay for this and most likely your kids will still be paying for it when they start working.

We has a near total shutdown, with only 22 lives lost, is that how you would describe government incompetence? USA, Britain, Brazil went to the opposite extreme, about 185,000 deaths there. What would you prefer? You seem to be saying no matter which way governments go they are incompetent. As for taxes, every generation is paying for things that happened in the past and for things that will happen on the future, its the price we pay for a (largely) civilised society.

[spanner spinner]

We has a near total shutdown, with only 22 lives lost, is that how you would describe government incompetence? USA, Britain, Brazil went to the opposite extreme, about 185,000 deaths there. What would you prefer? You seem to be saying no matter which way governments go they are incompetent. As for taxes, every generation is paying for things that happened in the past and for things that will happen on the future, its the price we pay for a (largely) civilised society.

the question was why would governments (all governments not just ours) destroy their economy & as per my reply to save lives maybe I didn't state this clearly enough, the up side for the people in power is that they get voted back in.
Our government did the saving lives bit OK at the expense of the economy. As you have stated lots of other governments around the world did a crap job on both counts crashed they economy and killed off their voter base, and look at the backlash they are experiencing due to the emotional cost of the deaths which is completely understandable.

In my opinion the economic fall out from the virus hasn't really got rolling yet, and the cost of printing money worldwide to paper over the cracks will impact the average wage earner with a much lower standard of living for a very long time.

If we where really onto it we would have shut ours boarders in January & quarantined returning New Zealand's in isolation camps for 28 days then we would have had no deaths and no shutdown and the only impact would have been to the tourist industry. This would have cost a lot less than shutting the whole country for 5 weeks even if you payed the tourist company's for their losses.

[FJRider]

... You are inferring that they were first past the post..that is an archaic systemwhere whole segment(s) of the vote is ignored.

That was not my intention to suggest or imply that. I said they had the majority of seats (for their Party). More than Labour had.

An unelected member of a small party ... with no electorate to represent ... talked himself into the position of Deputy PM.

And the funny part was ... many were surprised it could happen ... aside from the fact it actually did happen.

And I'm betting many would have wished for "Whole segment(s) of the vote" were ignored ...


Question ...was the end result of that election ... the intended result of the voting public (that actually voted) ..??

[husaberg]

that is the idea of it....PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.National had the biggest share of any one party.You are inferring that they were first past the post..that is an archaic systemwhere whole segment(s) of the vote is ignored.

By the 1981 elections, the party's support had subsided somewhat, and Social Credit only gained 20.55% of the vote. As expected, the electoral system did not translate this into seats in parliament, but Social Credit did retain the two seats it already held.

funny enough beethem beat DON BRASH for the seat.......

but what i find funny is the same right wing had no issues with peters in 96 when he went with Boulger.
or the minority parties mps propping up Key in subsequent elections..

Or ignoring referendums on asset sales.

New Zealand asset sales referendum, 2013
"Do you support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?"
Results
Votes %
Yes 442,985 32.40%
No 920,188 67.30%

John Key has said that his Govt will give little attention to the result of the referendum, describing it as political stunt by Labour and the Greens

Despite the overwhelming majority against this he turned around and sold or destroyed most of these. breaking his own promises prior to the election not to sell them.

None of them also had a problem when winston peters was made deputy PM ans treasurer under bolger

or when the nats had a lower % of the votes in either the 1978 or 1981 election.

Funny enough the same people spoiut right wing clap trap the worlds over as to why they have to have a assault rifle as they need it in case the gov represses them....
yet when the right wing gov calls in the military to repress its own citizens, they have zip to say about it.

[Naki Rat]

That was not my intention to suggest or imply that. I said they had the majority of seats (for their Party). More than Labour had.

An unelected member of a small party ... with no electorate to represent ... talked himself into the position of Deputy PM.

And the funny part was ... many were surprised it could happen ... aside from the fact it actually did happen.

And I'm betting many would have wished for "Whole segment(s) of the vote" were ignored ...


Question ...was the end result of that election ... the intended result of the voting public (that actually voted) ..??

That whole scenario (apart from the anomaly that is Winston) is pretty much the criticism that used to be levelled at FPP.

[FJRider]

That whole scenario (apart from the anomaly that is Winston) is pretty much the criticism that used to be levelled at FPP.

As I recall ... you had to win an Electorate, to get a seat in Parliament. The introduction of Preferred party votes was the game changer. Hence Winston, and thusly, his seat in Government.

Now the smaller parties barter their support, for support of their own bill's in exchange. In effect ... neither party gets full measure for their intended policy getting introduced into law.

[Naki Rat]

As I recall ... you had to win an Electorate, to get a seat in Parliament. The introduction of Preferred party votes was the game changer. Hence Winston, and thusly, his seat in Government.

Now the smaller parties barter their support, for support of their own bill's in exchange. In effect ... neither party gets full measure for their intended policy getting introduced into law.

You're right in that FPP had no 'party vote' component. The party that got the most electorate wins got to govern but when that included a disproportionate number of marginal seat wins it was possible that the 'winning' party actually got less than a majority of voters backing them. So, the government could actually represent a minority of voters. The same situation still exists under the US electoral system FWIK with a number of crucial swing states giving the likes of Bush or Trump a minority vote 'win'.

Whichever way the electoral system is designed you can guarantee the pollies will find a way to game that system - Winston, Trump, Boris, ...

[FJRider]

... Whichever way the electoral system is designed you can guarantee the pollies will find a way to game that system - Winston, Trump, Boris, ...

The current system favors the smaller parties ... if only to hinder the major parties.

So the major party's bills get introduced and the result is a compromise. Can that be good ... or do they try to start by asking/intending for more than they will be happy with ... KNOWING they wont get it all ... ???

[nerrrd]

The current system favors the smaller parties ... if only to hinder the major parties.

Labour and National are the two parties closest to the centre, they appear to maintain each others policies by and large from election to election (since '84 anyway) except for some tinkering around the edges, so I don't blame the system for the minor parties having more influence than they might deserve under MMP, I blame Labour and National for refusing to cooperate with each other by way of a grand coalition.

I guess this isn't hard to understand, given the legacy of a century of FPP prior to that and party organisations which have a vested interest in keeping each other at arms length.

Even so there's nothing stopping either National or Labour from getting more than 50% and governing on their own, except the voters. I'm ok with that.

Of course all that was pre-covid, now all bets are off as to what's going to happen in September and beyond.

[Naki Rat]

The current system favors the smaller parties ... if only to hinder the major parties.

So the major party's bills get introduced and the result is a compromise. Can that be good ... or do they try to start by asking/intending for more than they will be happy with ... KNOWING they wont get it all ... ???

Can't remember specific examples ATM but National had a habit of announcing radical policies initially before toning them down as a demonstration of taking a (comparatively) softer approach by contrast, which was probably their original intent. As I said "playing the system"...

[F5 Dave]

What we need is a dominant party with a right minded leader, a bit like myself but smarter. Oh Lord a lot smarter.
With a long term plan for the good of the country instead of petty random vote winning promises before each election cycle.

Whats good for the country is good for the party. So when I'm voted to power in sweeping election I will consider how to ensure everyone is working for the good of the party, and of course the country if you will.

There may need to be some re-education but that is a cleaning process for the good of the party, which I'm sure everyone will agree is the best for every right minded thinking citizen.

Vote for Akzle. . I mean. . Dammn.

[TheDemonLord]

What we need is a dominant party with a right minded leader, a bit like myself but smarter. Oh Lord a lot smarter. ]

You called?

[caseye]

What we need is a dominant party with a right minded leader, a bit like myself but smarter. Oh Lord a lot smarter.
With a long term plan for the good of the country instead of petty random vote winning promises before each election cycle.

Whats good for the country is good for the party. So when I'm voted to power in sweeping election I will consider how to ensure everyone is working for the good of the party, and of course the country if you will.

There may need to be some re-education but that is a cleaning process for the good of the party, which I'm sure everyone will agree is the best for every right minded thinking citizen.

Vote for Akzle. . I mean. . Dammn.

WASH YER MOUTH OUT BOI!
Poor ol Akzle would have kittens if he got erected!

[FJRider]

... I blame Labour and National for refusing to cooperate with each other by way of a grand coalition.

And then any bill introduced into Parliament would end up a "Grand Compromise" if it passed into Legislation ...

Of course all that was pre-covid, now all bets are off as to what's going to happen in September and beyond.

My guess ... Landslide win for Labour ... with minority parties getting seats ... but Labour getting enough seats to Govern on it's own.

And Winston sitting down the back of the house ... (The last bit might not happen ... but I'd smile if it did)


Time will tell ...

[husaberg]

Labour and National are the two parties closest to the centre, they appear to maintain each others policies by and large from election to election (since '84 anyway) except for some tinkering around the edges, so .

Both parties want to raise the age or National super but both know its an election loser, so we all pay for something we can no longer afford.