Pre-Election Poll

[idleidolidyll]

Yep, 2 way traffic. BTW, realism, not racism. You can continue to interpret how you want to and if that makes you happy then great. Just make sure you are consistent by launching into lengthy foul mouthed diatribes vilifying anyone who dares to deviate from your view of the world. Clearly, in your world conservative folk are intellectually vacant. Is that what is preached by communist lecturers littering universities perhaps?

realism?

hardly, what you seem to have been advocating was going back to a time that suited you regardless of the effect of that on others. You had no intention of going back further when it would have suited Maori. That's conservatism for ya, it aint about 'Us' it's about 'Me'.

I suggested going forward instead of backwards.

BTW: I only get into foul mouthed diatribes when they are first aimed at me; something your supporters are quite happy to do.

As for 'communist lecturers': hilarious! You're so out of touch it takes my breath away. Why don't you challenge your misconceptions and go listen to a lecture or two. It'd do you no end of good.

[limbimtimwim]

If this were a poll on 'who will win the election?', we all know it's going to be a big Labour defeat. All political capital they had is spent, amazing it has taken so long really.

Now, why am I voting Green? To keep National in check. Sounds a bit silly, but I think they would consider a deal. Much to the disgust of many of their supporters.

Though I suspect National will probably be able to govern in their first term without a coalition partner.

Of course MMP leaves me free to vote for the Labour candidate in my electorate next election because she came to our little cheese cutter gathering.

[limbimtimwim]

As for 'communist lecturers': hilarious! You're so out of touch it takes my breath away.

Ease off on the superlatives, you come across as an intellectual fairy.

[idleidolidyll]

Ease off on the superlatives, you come across as an intellectual fairy.

superlatives?

I didn't actually use any. Hell, I didn't even use comparatives!

Are you fresh from the swamp?

[limbimtimwim]

Are you fresh from the swamp?

That's where Pol Pot came from.

[Robert Taylor]

realism?

hardly, what you seem to have been advocating was going back to a time that suited you regardless of the effect of that on others. You had no intention of going back further when it would have suited Maori. That's conservatism for ya, it aint about 'Us' it's about 'Me'.

I suggested going forward instead of backwards.

BTW: I only get into foul mouthed diatribes when they are first aimed at me; something your supporters are quite happy to do.

As for 'communist lecturers': hilarious! You're so out of touch it takes my breath away. Why don't you challenge your misconceptions and go listen to a lecture or two. It'd do you no end of good.

Such a predictable response including a favourite constantly regurgitated ploy from the left, associating conservatism with maori bashing. Time we all thought as New Zealanders I rather thought. And constant use of expletives for emphasis is not clever, given your command of the English language I thought you could have done better than that. ( And your justification doesnt wash )

With regards to lectures Ive been reading your lecturous demeanour for the last few weeks and definitely do not feel better for it. I well remember a school teacher during my latter secondary years trying to justify communism, but I singularly refused to beat to his drum. Political bias in the education system, you betcha! One of my daughters secondary school teachers thought that I must have been a farmer because a view was expressed by my daughter less than complimentary to Helen Cluck. Etc etc

As I have eluded to previously the thing that really disturbs me most about hard core lefties is that they are just so cocksure that they are right and god help anyone who dares to disagree with them...

Sorry, but I remain proudly conservative, unreformably so and no end of verbose lefty diatribe is going to change that!

[idleidolidyll]

Such a predictable response including a favourite constantly regurgitated ploy from the left, associating conservatism with maori bashing. Time we all thought as New Zealanders I rather thought. And constant use of expletives for emphasis is not clever, given your command of the English language I thought you could have done better than that. ( And your justification doesnt wash )

Nope, that was just the inference from your earlier posts and the fact that you wanted to go back just far enough so your mob would be in charge while others were screwed over.
If we are ALL to think of New Zealanders and consider their cultures and respect their beliefs then the only way is through liberalism because conservatism is a path designed to favour minority groups as it preys on the rest.
As for expletives; i really don't give a damn what you think. I'm not trying to impress you, you don't mean that much to me.

With regards to lectures Ive been reading your lecturous demeanour for the last few weeks and definitely do not feel better for it. I well remember a school teacher during my latter secondary years trying to justify communism, but I singularly refused to beat to his drum. Political bias in the education system, you betcha! One of my daughters secondary school teachers thought that I must have been a farmer because a view was expressed by my daughter less than complimentary to Helen Cluck. Etc etc

My 'lecturous demeanour'? ROTFLMFAO! Hilarious stuff. Do you do stand up too?
So a few tutors support communism; so what? Others support capitalism and others support religious ignorance. Political bias? Rubbish! The spectrum is represented in my experience and that includes fascists, capitalists, fools and fruitcakes.
Who cares about your appeal to authority? Your one of case proves nothing and is irrelevant. One of my tutors in the last few years damned Helen Clark with every breath but that too is irrelevant just as your anecdote is.

As I have eluded to previously the thing that really disturbs me most about hard core lefties is that they are just so cocksure that they are right and god help anyone who dares to disagree with them...

That's just a whine because you lack the evidence and skills to debate the subject. Instead you attack the messenger and frankly; it doesn't impress me a bit. You right wing conservatives are just as cock sure but unlike many of us, you seem always so short on proof and instead rely on innuendo, propaganda and fallacy.

Sorry, but I remain proudly conservative, unreformably so and no end of verbose lefty diatribe is going to change that!

Sure you do, you're so cocksure you're right you'll never listen to reason.
Of course I really don't care in the least.

[Robert Taylor]

Sure you do, you're so cocksure you're right you'll never listen to reason.
Of course I really don't care in the least.

You love that word PROPOGANDA and are certainly a victim of it from left field. I rather think that my views are in fact more accomodating and flexible than yours. Go on, have the last say ( again ) Or lets see if for once you can restrain yourself!

[Sanx]

It aint MY meaning sonny, it's definition from sources quoted rather than from ignorance and propaganda. I DON'T claim to BE the authoritative source, I claim to post from authoritative sources; see if you can get your head around THAT English.
BTW: The corporate media is hardly a myth and ig you were to do a bit of reading you might learn something.

No ... you quote from sources you regard as authoritative, but most others wouldn't. When it comes to meanings of words, I regard dictionaries as being authoritative. The Oxford English Dictionary alone has 500,000 words defined. It traces the etymology and usage of words using 2.5 million quotations taken from a wide range of international sources from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books; and the quotations are all cross-referenced, checked, verified, cited and dated.

The full dictionary runs to twenty volumes. Fifty-nine million printed words on 60+ kgs of paper; it'd take one person sixty years to proof-read it, and the same person double that to type it out. How much more authoritative do you want? Considering the vast number of people that edit, proof-read, consult and are required to approve each new entry, do you actually believe they're going to print fake meanings just to join in the global media conspiracy?

You might think they're the tools of corporate media conspiracies but you're in a tiny minority when it comes to that opinion; especially when the particular dictionary I quoted is not actually owned by a global media company (as you incorrectly surmised) but by the colleges of Oxford University. When it comes to meanings of terms and words, dictionaries are the authoritative sources. Just because you choose not to accept their definitions (and, incididentally, you never quoted a single external reference to support your views during that particular argument), does not automatically make you right.

[idleidolidyll]

You love that word PROPOGANDA and are certainly a victim of it from left field. I rather think that my views are in fact more accomodating and flexible than yours. Go on, have the last say ( again ) Or lets see if for once you can restrain yourself!

Yep, we are all victims of propaganda and those who deny it are the most sucked in.
The only thing we can do is to try to understand how propaganda is used and identify it whenever possible.
As for you views being more accommodating; that's unlikely. I'm a liberal which means I support the idea that people should be allowed to live their lives within their own cultures (personal and ethnic/national) as long as they do no harm to others. Conservatives by definition wish to impose their will on others.

For anyone to be informed about YOUR views and suggestions you'd first have to offer them. So far you've merely done a John Key and said bugger all on policy and belief.

How about giving details of your conservatist opinions; what do you want to conserve? You said a while back that you'd like to go back to an earlier time; what time? What specific policies would you introduce and delete?

[idleidolidyll]

No ... you quote from sources you regard as authoritative, but most others wouldn't. What, like you do? When it comes to meanings of words, I regard dictionaries as being authoritative. Really? So why do you argue with my definitions from Collins and Oxford? The Oxford English Dictionary alone has 500,000 words defined. It traces the etymology and usage of words using 2.5 million quotations taken from a wide range of international sources from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books; and the quotations are all cross-referenced, checked, verified, cited and dated. What's your point? I USE dictionaries and QUOTE from them here.

You don't think the Collins dictionary is authoritative, the Oxford? I've quoted both on the definitions of political terminology here to expose the mindless pap supplied by others? You don't think government research and inquiries are authoritative? You're making a fool of yourself.
Tell ya what, give me a list of what you consider authoritative sources.........I need a good laugh.

The full dictionary runs to twenty volumes. Fifty-nine million printed words on 60+ kgs of paper; it'd take one person sixty years to proof-read it, and the same person double that to type it out. How much more authoritative do you want? Considering the vast number of people that edit, proof-read, consult and are required to approve each new entry, do you actually believe they're going to print fake meanings just to join in the global media conspiracy?

I've used it myself; stop making fake arguments with yourself, it's embarrassing. However, you really have to know which version you're quoting and if one version gives one definition and another version from the same stable gives a different version; you really should question them.

You might think they're the tools of corporate media conspiracies but you're in a tiny minority when it comes to that opinion; especially when the particular dictionary I quoted is not actually owned by a global media company (as you incorrectly surmised) but by the colleges of Oxford University. When it comes to meanings of terms and words, dictionaries are the authoritative sources. Just because you choose not to accept their definitions (and, incididentally, you never quoted a single external reference to support your views during that particular argument), does not automatically make you right.

Now you're drooling. The CORPORATE MEDIA are tools; the words themselves give the game away. In addition, research by many noted people has exposed the fact that this media is indebted to its advertisers who pay the bills not to the public who pay a pittance in purchase costs. I've actually studied the media formally. I've offered quotes directly from the editors of some of the most famous publications in the world exposing the corporate propaganda and their tactics and yet you offer an unauthorative denial. Pardon me while I chuckle quietly.
As for quotes and references; I poked holes in your silly arguments USING references. Lets see you do the same instead of whining. I never specifically stated that the Oxford was propaganda; that's your delusion. I have used it myself. However, I note that when definitions change over time just to suit current propaganda, we must all be wary.

Please, try to offer some arguments instead of your continued attacks on the messenger; you're boring me shitless.

[Wolf]

You said a while back that you'd like to go back to an earlier time; what time? What specific policies would you introduce and delete?

We could experiment - you could take away his mum's pension and stick his kids up chimneys; I'll shove him in a tent on the beach at Petone with 1500 other families with screaming kids and 4 doctors, no electricity, no running water, no cars...

[Finn]

Now, why am I voting Green? To keep National in check. Sounds a bit silly, but I think they would consider a deal. Much to the disgust of many of their supporters.

Voting for Green IS voting for Labour so don't be a traitor.

While I believe that National won't go far enough (ACT supporter here) there's no other choice. We need National to get in on their own so we can then get rid of MMP, Maori seats and all the hangers on.

[Wolf]

We need National to get in on their own so we can then get rid of MMP, Maori seats and all the hangers on.

And make the sun come out again, cure dandruff, get rid of the nanny state....

Unless the laws inconvenience the Business Round Table, they won't touch them, they'll keep status quo on all nanny state laws restricting personal freedoms and add others to restrict them further in the interests of Big Business.

So I doubt they'd get rid of MMP and the Maori seats unless it could be demonstrated they were impacting on the Round Table doing what it likes.

They are pro-nanny-state authoritarians.

I note from your political orientation on my thread that you test out Authoritarian Right - pretty much where National sits (sat in 2005) on the chart. I respect your decision to vote Nat (although I disagree with it) - at least you're voting your political beliefs rather than playing FPP with the MMP system and voting Nat merely to depose Labour.

[steveb64]

Snip'd

Personally, I'd like to see MMP come up with a proper mixed-member parliament with a Libertarian basis and their more extreme policies (read "the ones I personally don't agree with") tempered/blocked by other parties.

I think that the problem with MMP is that they didn't take it far enough.

I would like to propose a 'dual house' parliament, with the lower house having 100 seats, and the upper house 50 seats.

Lower house is comprised of 'list' MPs, no 5% threshold, 1% of vote gets you 1 seat. 10.5% gets you 10 seats - 45.9% gets you 45 seats. Unfilled seats get filled by a lottery taken from enrolled AND voting citizens. Simply tick the box for your party vote, then on a SEPARATE form fill in your name and contact details if you want to be eligible for 'the lottery' - and a nice MP's salary. And it would be nice to have some MP's who were not professional politicians!

Upper house is comprised of electoral seats, and is the pool from which Cabinet members can be taken. NO Cabinet members allowed from lower house. That way, if they screw up, then their electorate can (hopefully) remove them. Electoral boundaries to be re-shaped only. And only to balance out population distribution imbalances. IF (due to population growth, and inability to evenly distribute voter distribution) - more upper house (electorates) seats are required, then the ratio of upper to lower house seats must be maintained. And the ratio of vote for the lower house must also be maintained, so 1 more electorate means 1 more upper house seat, and 2 more lower house seats, and the lower house threshold increases to 1.02% of party votes per seat.

PM to be selected from party with most MP's - taken from upper and lower houses. BUT - PM must be a member of the upper house.

Move elections out to 4 yearly (helps reduce long term costs), and have an elected 'El Presidente' chosen 2 years after the main elections. (Yes, I know that's what the 'merkins do, but they're allowed to have the occasional 'good idea').

The President would be basically replacing the 'Governor General' - face it - what real relevance does the Queen have to this country these days?

And I KNOW some of you are gonna yell "But there's TOO MANY politicians already!"
And what makes better 'democracy'? More people voting? And more parties? Or less?
Errm - that's "less" as in Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al...

Oh - and secret ballot voting in parliament - members should be allowed to vote their conscience, not as they're dictated to - either by party higher ups, OR peer pressure (aka bullying).