The race is close
September 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am by David FarrarToday’s Herald DigiPoll should deal to any complacency about the result of the next election. It is competitive.
144 Responses to “The race is close”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
We’ve passed the tipping point, most Kiwi’s now expect government handouts so the only way for National to win is by promising those handouts, welcome to spirling socialism. All down hill from here folks.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Andrew
That’s about the size of it. Sadly the left don’t actually care about the long term effects of their policies. All that matters now is the elusive 4th term. All that mattered in 2005 was the elusive 3rd term.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
DPF
I’ve suggested this before but perhaps it’s a bit more timely now.
If all people who don’t support Labour answer “Labour” when asked by a poll which party they will vote for the polls will rocket in favour of Labour and the cocky power hungry bastards will call a snap election to capitalise on their lead.
Followed by certain defeat….
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
The next election will be an absolute s***fight. Labour will bribe every man and his dog to win again. I just hope that national aquires some testicular fortitute to take them on. I am begining to fear that there are already too many NZers who just don’t give a toss.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
“I just hope that national aquires some testicular fortitute to take them on.”
How should National “take them on” what policies will win an election in which most of the population looks for – expects, government hand outs?
“I am begining to fear that there are already too many NZers who just don’t give a toss.”
hey give a toss alright, about who’s offering the most election bribes.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
People of low intellect will accept the bribes without questioning how they will be paid for. If the gummit say it can afford them then it must be OK…
Meanwhile people who are paying for them start to get heartily pissed off and leave the country because not only will they be paying for other peoples lollies they are denied access to them because … they pay too much tax so that others can have them.
One day when the dim-bulbs wake up and realise that an economy can’t function with 80% taking from the pot and only 20% contributing to it they will blame the incoming Govt for the pain the “hard love” has caused.
Sound like the 80′s all over again ?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
The Kiwis in the 20% contributing are already leaving the country.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
A 6 year period of giving those who produce the goods a break every 2 decades won’t stop the rot.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It is compeditive and winnable for National. The media just love this sort of thing it sells newsprint. But the Labour Party cannot be allowed to say they want price control on all sorts of things and then when you challenge them that is socialism, which is a failure, they become all vague. I am truely fed up with the way National Party politicans are letting Labour bully the terms of the political debate. And if they cannot shift the goal posts away from Labour then piss off and let the National Party find people who can.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
andrew
national are between a rock and a hard place because whatever they announce by way of policy Labour will just offer/bribe more, ala student loans last election.
National need to sell themselves to NZ as a different philosophy – low tax , low govt interference, deal to the basics, cut government spending, promote personal freedom and responsibility etc. which is exactly what this country needs but I fear that people that think like us are outnumbered.
Under Labour NZ will eventually turn into a land of a few wealthy people and and a majority of people who own wide screen TVs on tick and rent houses.
They should begin by absolutely hammering Labour over the EFB
Otherwise Burts prediction of businesses and people packing up will be true.
If Labour win the next election my business will be in Australia by next Xmas
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“And if they cannot shift the goal posts away from Labour then piss off and let the National Party find people who can.”
actually this is what I was trying to say
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
bwakile I soooo agee.
The EFB is manna from heaven for National yet they treat it like it is doggy-doo.
What other once-in-a-generation issue are they waiting for?
If they can’t make capital out of this, they need to ask themselves if they made the right career choice getting into politics.
And all they have to do, is open a dialogue with the people. Use good old-fashioned soap-box politics.
Go over the head of Government and talk to the electorate.
If they toss this one into the ‘too hard’ basket, frankly I’d rather vote for the Maori Party, on the grounds that they are too incompetent to be trusted with a box of shar knives, let alone run a country…
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Bwakile -
If you go over to Aussie to escape Labour,
You’ll end up being governed by Labor – Howard’s finished, Rudd will be PM, and all state govts are run by Labor.
That sorta attitude reminds me of a comment by Alan Duff in 1999 that he would leave NZ if Labour was elected…
Didn’t happen.
It’s interesting – some of those who claim to be “passionate about NZ”, and “wanting to avert the path to socialism” – are the first to jump ship if they end up under a government they don’t like. As for totalitarian and socialist, by calling the government that people are putting the govt. on a par with countries like Myanmar – which is certainly disrespectful if you think you have something in common with them.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Bwakile,
Bollocks! Move to Australia by all means but don’t bitch and moan on the way out. You’ll find that the costs of being in business in Australia are at least if not more expensive than in NZ. Go read this report, http://www.regulationtaskforce.gov.au/finalreport/regulationtaskforce.pdf, before you make a booking.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Andrew W wrote: “The Kiwis in the 20% contributing are already leaving the country.”
puhlease… Figures show most people are going to Australia which isn’t exactly the bastion of non-interventionist govt nor a champion against middle class welfare.
Does the net inflow from the UK show that we’re less of a hand out culture than there?
Anyhoo – good luck selling up and moving on AW.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Opps; remove the comma at the end of the link above and it will work
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
*sigh* I really don’t know how I’ll cope if Mrs Davis and her cronies get another 3 years. It’s not even worth thinking about.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Paul W
The PM once said.
As an Individual an Australian pays $15,516 as tax on a gross income of $65,520. An Individual in NZ pays $16,822.80 as tax on a gross income of $65,520.
The Aussie pays $1,306.80 less tax on an income $65,520
As an Individual an Australian pays $5,688 as tax on a gross income of $32,760. An Individual in NZ pays $6,388.20 as tax on a gross income of $32,760.
The Aussies pays $698 less tax on an income of $32,760.
So that was the averages disposed off, how about the lower incomes.
Lets say Joe earns $18,000 a year.
In Aussie the tax is $1,800
In NZ the tax is a whopping $3,510
The Aussie is paying $1,710 less tax on an income of $18,000.
In NZ you pay almost twice as much tax when you earn $18,000. a year. It’s just my opinion but I think this a very bad look for a Govt that claims it represents the lower to average income working people of NZ.
look at a reasonably large salary.
Lets say Joe earns $100,000
Aussie: $30,550
Kiwi: $30,270
The Kiwi pays $280 less here on an income of $100,000.
So the cross over point in the progressive models used is somewhere close below $100,000.
A quick look at massive income of $280,000
Aussie: $115,150
Kiwi: $100,470
Kiwi pays $14,680 less tax on an income of $280,000. Once again it’s just my opinion but I think this a very bad look for a Govt that claims it represents lower to average income working people of NZ.
So the truth of the matter would appear to be, that the average Kiwi is better off in Aussie tax wise. Lower income earners are a lot better off in Australia tax wise and high income earners pay more tax in Australia.
Is your assertion and link the same as the PM’s hollow spin?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Policy Parrot
I think if there were democratic elections in NZ then less people would be frustrated to the point of resignation.
I know the $800,000 extra spending by Labour in 2005 didn’t effect the outcome of the election – Labour told us it didn’t so it can’t have. (cough cough)
Helen Clark: NZ’s first retrospectively validated PM.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
As I see it National should not be handing out ill prepared policy thereby diverting attention from the Electoral Finance Bill and giving Klark a soapbox to attack them from. KEY should be crusading up and down the country keeping the pressure on that Bill. I would speculate that the GREEN vote is due to propaganda subverting the young and both the subversion and the propaganda can be expected to intensify during the first Helengrad gag period. Hard to believe but things can only get worse with a Liabour/Greens Dictatorship.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Burt, I didn’t make a comment about personal tax rates – I addressed a point about the compliance costs of business. Perhaps if you had slowed down before you trotted out recycled CIS figures you’d've realised.
My argument was and is that the regulatory burden on Australian enterprises is as high if not higher than is experienced in NZ. I’m currently working on a deregulation project as part of a related COAG projects – in part, the difference in Australia is explicable by reference to the federal system but this isn’t the whole story. NZ is often used as a model of light-handed regulation for Australia aspire to.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
When talking about the Australian Federal Government I can’t help but wonder if I am hearing references to “light-headed policy” or “white-handed policy”.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
DDD, its all a matter of perspective and contrast. Compare the federal government with any state government, except Victoria: stark! NZ government is immeasurably better although I do admire the Australian Treasury, they’ve done some pretty clever policy thinking in the last few years.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
i dont intend to move to Oz. I can easily have my business in Oz but live here. I just object to living in a country where labours mismanagement is going to have huge reprocussions in the future.
I have made my money so am only really concerned now for my kids future.
Vote:I have worked hard for 20 years contributing to NZ and was really happy to see my $180,000 tax bill before the last election spent so wisely on pledge cards
September 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Anyone moving a business to Australia should know they will have a higher wage bill and also have to pay top this up with “contributions” (for all workers and in larger amounts than for just those on Kiwi Saver).
Anyone comparing the tax rates should note we pay New Zealand Super out of our taxation – whereas Australians pay money on top of tax into their own schemes.
And yes it will be competitive. At the closer level (remember some of those preferring a National led government will peel away to minor parties on the centre-right closer to the election), the fact of Green and Maori Party presence takes on a more apparent significance.
People value the security and economic sovereignty that assured public ownership provides (what happened to Telecom – AAPT and high cost lack of infrastructure renewal… Air New Zealand – Ansett … Rail’s morass till government support re-emerged… the banking sector prior to Kiwi Bank) and also that of our public health system. Anyone with a brain knows that if doctors set their own fees – doctors move into areas where people who can afford doctors live. Then the rich get more and the poor have less. We already have a doctor shortage – to accerbate this would not just result in a health crisis for some areas, it would destroy the wellness check programme.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Paul,,
Thats just an accolade you gave the Australian Treasury
Is it supported with any media editorials??
The govt here doesn’t get anything like that from our media and they have the audacity to expect us to hang on their every word.
Their aren’t any front page eye opening headlines bout this cabinet
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
baxter said:
KEY should be crusading up and down the country keeping the pressure on that Bill.
Absolutely baxter, and convening cross party talks to try and get UF and NZF to see sense.
Vote:Fidel Peters won’t, but some of his colleagues may still retain some principles.
Some one pointed out yesterday that Peter Dunne held the balancing vote in the select committee.
If Dunne can see that a bill that has been deplored by the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society and 500 others, needs to at least go back to the drawing board, he may feel it is “reasonable” to vote for its rejection at this point in view of a genuine Multi-Party approach being employed.
DUNNE holds the KEY to KILL THE BILL!!
September 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Gosh, if that’s the sort of reaction from the public that National gets when they announce a “discussion document”, their backers must be hoping that they aren’t going to announce any actual policy before the next election.
That is, if they have any policy.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Reg
Vote:I hope you aren’t pinning your hopes on Dunne.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
4.05 pm “exacerbate not accerbate”.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Dunne’s sector of the voting population is not a large one. It is liberal but not liberal left, it is liberal but not environmentalist or human rights activist, it is liberal but not libertarian. It is liberal and yet also conservative.
I was once called a “left wing fellow traveller one of that ilk” for pointing this out.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“Sadly the left don’t actually care about the long term effects of their policies”
yeah like almost a decade of sustained and reasonable economic development, the lowest unemployment rates in decades…
But keep taking the blue pill, it’s only going to help your reality.
PEOPLE!!!! Stop with the FUCKING SOCIALISM CLAIMS. Labour is Third Way centralist politics at the very best. Labour is not Socialist.
You people obviously have no idea what a socialist policy is. And if you really had socialist policy coming from the beehive then you’d really be moaning.
As for OZ, when the prime, indeed seemingly only motivation in life is to earn more money and pay less tax then why the fuck are you stopping at Australia.
Burt of course failed to mention the higher health care costs, the incredibly high house prices but to mention a few. But once again from the right, we’d hate the facts to get in the way. Then there are those bloody accents, the crime and of course the racism. That country has as many problems as others, but their race relations problems are something else.
But answer me this. Come a national govt. The give you a bribe of a tax cut. The novelty of that wears off a couple of years, do you keep asking for a tax cut? I mean if you guys are to be consistent, then why the hell do you all pay tax?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hmm, the next election competitive? The choice is between Labour and Labour. No competition there. The only competition is if we should get Helen or John in the job. The policies will remain the same.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Paul
Either your or Dr. Cullen have it wrong!
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Paul, IMHO the current Labour government is socialist. We have an increasing number of NZs dependent on the state for some or all of their income. Setting aside the comfy side-effect of having move voter leverage each election this state-sourced income tells us that the state believes it know what best to do with our money.
I reject that. It’s socialist dogma.
Labour have lost their way. They no longer represent the workers of NZ. What they do stand for is continued power by political manipulation. Time for NZ to wake up from our ‘she’ll be right’ apathy.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
bwakile said:
Reg
I hope you aren’t pinning your hopes on Dunne.
I know it seems like clutching at straws bwakile, but it may be the only hope.
Vote:Peters has lost it. There is nothing so pathetic as an unpopular populist involving himself in vindictive spleen venting in support of an ideology his constituency detests.
Put Dunne claims to be reasonable, it would be an ideal opportinity for him to seize the moral high ground and at the same time distance himself from Labour, without reneging on his confidence and supply agreement.
Its a long shot- but it may be our last chance.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Then the US government Oz and the EU nations are “socialist” – they all have state finding/tax credits for families.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
We don’t get to vote in their elections SPC so stop distracting the debate.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Agree Paul.
I believe we are never going to get a ‘traditional’ right wing government in this country ever again under MMP. Still think National will form the next govt, but we have to accept many of the policies will remain the same.
People just don’t want the hard right- that’s politics.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I don’t know of anyone actually defending the “bill” referred to – it’s now a choice between gutting it or starting again.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Paul
Yes I did for good reason. Aussie have a tax rebate for private health care expenses and also have a private education rebate for people who pay for private education. Both of these policies recognise that people paying for things via income tax that they are not using are being unfairly taxed.
House prices… Compared to income (both gross and after tax comparisons) houses are more affordable in Aussie.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
SPC – you misrepresent me. I said
The key word is increasing. Of course other countries have govt assistance. But our ‘assistance’ creates dependence across many parts of society. Why else would families well into the top tax bracket be the recipients of their own re-cycled tax money?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
burt
I don’t see why re-invention of the meaning of the word socialist should be held unique to domestic politics.
And remind you that National and others here cite wage rates and tax rates overseas in reference to our situation …
We are either in our own “world of meaning” situation, or we are not.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
SPC
I disagree. I think it’s a choice between making a few minor tweaks to it and passing it under urgency as a confidence issue or just forgetting the tweaks and trying to ram it through anyway.
Labour don’t do back down very well – it’s hard to imagine what they would say given they have defended it so staunchly up till now.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
krazy kiwi
More people had government assistance in the days of mortgage rebates and family benefit (both universal).
The WFF merely restored that wider level of support to families.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Dr Cullen has it so wrong.
The principals of Socialism don’t have anything in common with tight policies of the treasury benches.
But if you people all believe that this Labour govt is socialist, then I guess I am dealing with a bunch of morons. Socialism is not defined by your feelings about the failings of a centralist govt.
Why are you all so hell bent on blaming the govt for all of the so called failings of the economy. Last time I looked the economy was booming so much that the reserve bank was having to fight the growth with draconian sledge hammers.
Business and it’s lack/inability/unwillingness/whatever to drive up productivity (which is amongst the lowest anywhere) and invest in R&D is woefull. They all blame the rampid rise of the Kiwi dollar. How then does one explain 16 years ago the Canadian dollar was buying 66c US and is now at $1.005 and they are all cheering here (with the odd exception).
We are a country of natural moaners, that she’ll be right you talk about is systemic of the left and right in NZ, there is little political leadership and even less business leadership.
But then you guys don’t even know what Socialist policy is, and even worse Cullen uses it with Tongue in Cheek, what are we to expect of progress.
And no more people are not now dependent on the state than before Labour came to power, please stick to the facts, the ‘thoughts and feelings’ are boring.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Paul
I won’t disagree with you that Dr. Cullen has it wrong. It’s evident in so many things about NZ. The tall poppy complex ( policies of envy ) that the Labour Govt play on are not helping NZ thrive in the global market. As proven by our slide in the OECD ratings since the policies of envy have been set loose on this country.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
burt
It all depends on what one means by minor tweaks or gutting it. No one is defending the bill as written. And that’s before Labour goes about collecting votes further tweak by tweak until they reach the point of rewriting it.
As my first two choices would be no anonymous funding and taxpayer matching funds matching of party membership support levies, I hope they re-visit the entire issue.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
SPC
Rich = earning over $60K
Poor = earning less than $120K
I don’t get WFF – perhaps you could explain how this situation is sane?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“Labour is Third Way centralist politics at the very best. Labour is not Socialist.”
Paul you can spin it any way you like but in this world there are basically two types of people – socialist and capitalists. Labour is socialist because they believe in controlling peoples destinies. I dont want my destiny controlled, life is too short.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
burt,
A single person living with their parents on $65,000 is saving to buy a home. A couple on $120,000 a year raising 4 kids still might find it hard to pay the mortage of a house in some/many suburbs of Auckland.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Anybody who knows much about bell curves will understand that if at the time of the 2007 budget 15% of the population were paying the rich bastard tax then by budget 2008 there will be close to 25% of the population paying the rich bastard tax. The curve starts to get steeper around the 10-14% range and therefore it might have taken a few years to get from 5% to 15% but it all starts to get interesting from here.
Top 5%… my prediction is that by budget 2008 there will be 20%-25% of workers paying the rich tax. Of course getting statistics like this from the socialists will be impossible. Although Dr. Cullen did admit a certain amount of fiscal drag is required to pay for their policies….
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
bwakile
So Christians are socialists and atheist rationalists are capitalist?
There goes the secular left Christian right culutral war divide of American politics.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
SPC
So what you are saying is that it’s valid to tax them as a rich bastard – will you also say that housing is getting harder to afford in NZ? Do you see a connection between these two things ?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
SPC
I guess I can’t agree that it’s valid to keep people poor until such time as they have children so that they are compelled to seek state assistance.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
burt
As you note, the chewing gum tax cuts by inflation indexing the tax scales are looking more and more attractive in hindsight.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
burt
Any person on $65,000 living at home would not be poor. They would be saving for their home by buying one and renting it out to cover the mortgage cost (an alternative is to flat with other singles doing the same).
I am saying WFF is support based on need, those on $65,000 withiout dependents do not have the same need.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
They didn’t go far enough SPC. I would happily support a “rich tax” set at a margin that is actually collecting the rich. IE > $140K.
I have suggested many times that the WFF and “rich bastard” thresholds should simply be swapped. Stop paying benefits to people who earn twice the “rich” threshold…. seems really logical really.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Being a Christian myself I tend to try to keep my faith and politics seperate.
Vote:i am talking about basic human instinct.
Some people are happy to have their life controlled which is why socialism has a strong appeal – no risks in life in exchange for a moderate comfortable life as opposed to those who like to take risks and be rewarded if they succeed
September 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
burt
Your mission, should you choose to undertake it, is to get National to agree. They have in the past tried to abolish the top rate entirely and there have been noises about some not getting the WFF (probably gaining even more from tax cuts)
I cannot see Labour doing either. Labour might increase the thresh-hold from 60 up towards $75,000 over the 2008-2011 term (there are inflationary pressure issues). Or they focus on cutting taxes at the lower level (or an affordable mix of the 2) if they want to help the lower paid take up Kiwi Saver.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
bwailke
So was I. Why do people seek the security of a faith which guarantees them their “salvation”, yet deplores the same sense of security being important in their own mortal life or that of others.
Often, it’s because they feel they can do better than the average, while otherwise they are not able to be an eternal god and so need to depend on one.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
SPC
If we lifted the “rich bastard” threshold by the same percentage that the PM has had pay rises (9%) since 1999 it would already be close to $120K.
Such a shame that people voted for the policies of envy without some form of control such as an annual lift to make sure that the top rate only collected the top 5% of workers.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
We cannot all be PM – just envious, it would be great to be in Europe for the finals.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
SPC
I dont regard faith as a security issue but rather as the icing on the cake . I like to believe in something more than human nature.The salvation bit at the end is just a reward for not sinning
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
bwakile
so please drive down Queen St at 80K and lets see what your so called freedoms achieve for society.
Holly crap you talk a lot of shit. the world is not divided into socialist and capitalists, that is your world view. Those who have never heard of the term in non western societies don’t even think in these terms. What a load of crap ‘happy to be controlled’. The so called freest society in the world, is one of the most policed controlled out there. The more freedoms they attain to achieve negates the freedoms of others.
To define success in such narrow terms is a sad sad way to live. I mean if you really believe these terms of reference for success, why the hell aren’t you on suicide watch 24/7, as I’m guessing that you aren’t one of NZ’s mega rich blogging from your luxury yacht moored in the Bay somewhere. I mean hell if you aren’t now sitting back reaping the rewards of your success, surely you are a failure, or you are running yourself into the ground attaining this state of economic nirvana. I don’t want to sound so dramatic and believe me I have nothing against you personally, indeed I am a little worried for you.
However the saddest thing, is assuming that in your view there are only two types of people. I’m more than happy for you to achieve mega wealth, however do not do it in a way that belittles the achievements and freedoms of others. Do not belittle the goals of others. Still people like you are more than happy knowing that there is a black and a white. Life isn’t black and white – thank your god.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
SPC
Perhaps if we were not paying rich taxes at 1999 levels more of us could be in Europe for the final.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
paul
Vote:I’m sorry to have wound you up so much
Actually I arent motivated by money.i enjoy work and doing things- some work some dont
I still stand by my comment about 2 types of people though.
I want to see everyone achieve their goals and my point is that capitalism will provide more opportunity but more risk for that to happen.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
burt
If only the average worker had the 9% pa wage increases of the corporate elite, on whose wage increases the PM’s own salary is based on.
bwakile
I like to believe in more than just the “Christian God” invented by those who think God is in their own belief and works/values image.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Yes agree SPC. It’s the funniest thing that the lefties don’t apply the same standards when judging dear leader as they do the CEO’s.
CEO = Rich bastards exploiting workers. And PM = …sad to say – exactly the same.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I have worked inside a few Govt dept’s in my time. At pay rise time I always use to create quite a stir when I said that there is no way we (the workers) should accept the piffling 1-3% increases negotiated by the limp writed unions. I always told the union reps to come back when they had negotiated the same increase that the other “special” public servants had.
They never had an answer for that – and I was usually a lone voice.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
SPC
Vote:I believe in the God of my culture
Believing in several Gods is probably bad for your mental health
September 29th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I suspect a turning point came when John K sided with Labour on anti smacking bill. At the time, while it did not seem to have an immediate effect on the polls, I thought his error was so huge it would probably cost him the election.
While they were the late 40′s at the time, I really felt they could have climbed to the 60′s had he of taken a resolute stand against it and said unequivically that it would not improve anything and that National would change it once he got into power.
And of course now he could have been driving the nails deeper by reiterating how stupid the policy was every time another poor little kiddie was maltreated.
*sigh* It’s so depressing. We could have had that awful law changed so sensible policies could help kids, but more importantly, that awful woman really would have a long run to get back in the race.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
bwakile
To help you comprehend world views larger than your own.
I believe that God is NOT the Jewish God or the Christian God or the Moslem God. The latter are the God’s of human cultures which validate a culture of creation. Gods of the cultures of creation are to use a biblical term you may understand – idolatry.
God is God of all and not an invention of our silly culture religions.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
So what happens to those who fail with the risks? Are we to be like America and have 4million people sleep on the street tonight and each and every night. there was an article in the Vancouver Sun, reporting on the failure of her retirement investments, she is now on the street, all the victim of the Sub Prime fiasco.
You see there are faces to these risks, and unfortunately too many people on the right are just prepared to sweep these people under the carpet. Bush for example Just last week vowed to veto a bill that would have extended health care to 10million children. But because he equated it to state provision of health care, he didn’t want a bar of it, and 10million children don’t have health care coverage in the US. Imagine that not being able to take your kid to see a medical specialist – unfathomable.
His words [the bill was] “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American”. Imagine being that stupid and heartless.
I am probably the most left blogging here at the moment, yet I have no problem with personal wealth not attaining personal rewards. You just need to be aware that these are not without victims and consequences.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Each god to each own. I prefer my tea served with a warm bowl of agnosticism and a hint of Reginald Perrin Nihilism.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Paul.
You are astounding. You get all high and might and slate people for being so black and white. Then you go off saying that if we don’t have exactly what we have now we will have people sleeping on the streets. Labour Good – National Bad. Black – White.
Get a grip. Ask a few National party supporter if they think we should have no welfare and see how many say “off course – gone by lunchtime”.
There is a big difference between the logic of pay welfare to people earning twice what is called rich to having welfare for the needy.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Paul
Why is it the states responsibility to provide welfare to people earning well over $100K simply because they choose to have a big family. Lets face the facts – if people are collecting welfare at that level because they have a large family then unless that had 6 children in the last 3 years then they had chosen to have that many children without WFF. Give or take 1 perhaps 2 children in the last year or two.
Suddenly, immediately before an election, a policy to pay benefits to large families even if they are rich pops out and new…. we have a policy we can’t imagine life without.
Defend the principal of WFF – sure go ahead. But can you defend the threshold?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Paul, you clearly know nothing about health care in the US. They have socialist health care just like us. It’s called the emergency room.
And yes, if you are allowed to take risk, you can run the risk that it goes wrong. Else it wouldn’t be risk Paul.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Paul
And this could happen under KiwiSaver. What is your point?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“Just last week vowed to veto a bill that would have extended health care to 10million children.”
Well shit.. why stop there? Why not extend health care to 20 million children? Why not to every damn American? Shit, why not to every damn man woman and child on the fucken globe? If all it takes is legislation, what the fuck’s holding you back Einstein???
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Berend – and the emergency room is what sort of primary health care? So capitalist advocate primary health care for those who can afford it and band aids for those who can’t.
I know more than enough about the US system. So those who aren’t even taking the risk are at the risk of those who are taking the risk. Which leads me to Kiwisaver Burt.
My point exactly, what if it goes belly up (which is probably not of the making of the person in question), do we just throw the people on the street as they do in America? From what I take from you guys is yes we do.
Hardly a system in which the welfare of the people are considered. But then you guys couldn’t give a shit about others could you. I just love the way you all seem to think that you all live in isolation. Keep living the dream people.
If you guys believe that, then sorry, you are very much in the minority in NZ, where the ideal of universalism in health care and education are very much part of the kiwi psyche. Even the latest polls show that people still would prefer to see money spent on health and education over tax cuts.
I love the way you talk of Socialism as if it’s a bad word?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Redbaiter… question? or just foaming at the mouth.
You are one sanctimonious twat aren’t you. You defending Bush not wanting to provide the basic function of government, the health, education and safety of it’s citizens. But worse than that, extending the primary health care to those most at risk from no fault of their own? funny the latest looks like that Bush’s own party is going to void the veto as it looks like there are so many Republicans disgusted at this stance by Bush that it looks like congress has the 75% needed to pass the bill without Bush’s nasty pen.
I’d be happy to engage in debate with you, but you’ve got to do a little better than ranting and raving. Christ you make Tim “secret agendas” Barclay look like a Pulitzer Prizewinning genius.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Burt,
there is no black and white, what are you talking about. I was just posing a what if hypothetical question. Some here have suggested that only the strongest survive, I was asking why?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
hinamanu,
Its based on experience, not column inches. The latter is a pretty imprecise measure. I’ve worked in the NZ government sector and the Australia state and federal government and my view is that the NZ government is significantly better – more professional, more effective, less inefficient, and less political. I should add that I currently work for a very effective agency that is staffed by professionals who take their public sector responsibilities seriously.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Good god almighty, we have people on this
blog believing that the Nats would look at so
called hard right policies.
Do this, go to Federated farmers and tell them all the cross subsidies for the power networks in
rural areas are to be dropped, just wait for the
screams of pain.
So, who wants a complete free market economy , oh and no help for farmers if their
Vote:land gets a bit damp?
September 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
“the basic function of government, the health, education and safety of it’s citizens”
What half witted crap. Government can keep the fuck out of my life. The day my health education and safety depends on knuckle dragging half educated fuckwits like you is the day I put a loaded pistol to my temple and pull the trigger.
“I love the way you talk of Socialism as if it’s a bad word? (sic)”
It is a socially destructive political ideology and the proof of this is seen in any country where it has become ascendant, with its key element (welfarism) turning healthy productive citizens into brainless uneducated state dependent knuckle draggers. (just like you Paul).
Socialism is a stinking bloated stain on civilization that tears the heart out of any country where it is the favoured political system. In more enlightened times, the period when the academics and politicians of the west were seduced by the sick religion of Marxism will be compared to the Dark Ages of Europe.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Burt,
Re: Your 3.22 pm post – to take your first example:
As an individual an Australian on a gross income of $ 65 520 will receive an extra 9 %
Superannuation ON TOP -fully paid for by his employer, i.e. an extra $5,897 gross or $5,012 net (Aust super is taxed at 15%).
So in net terms he is $1308-80 (your figure) better off tax-wise on his basic income, but he is also $5012 better off through super: total $6319 better off than in NZ.
Besides which, on $65 520 he is probably a truck driver in Australia, if in NZ he’s probably a mid level manager.
Also,
Vote:SPC at 4.05pm said “Australians pay money on top of tax into their own schemes”
WRONG- only if they are employers.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
… and the government is asking Maori who have made Oz their home to consider returning to NZ. quite funny really.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
At the risk of appearing a sanctimonious b**d –
=WTF ARE YO ALL ON ABOUT?!? thought I’d come and catch up before bed and see what pearls of wisdom you good people might offer regards the supposed close competition between Nats and Labs in the next election, Goodness was I deluding myself to think there might be some relevance issued here.
Reg, re Baxter and to some extent Bwakile – yeah I’d agree with that = Key should be adressing the population about the EFB. But it the quality of focus on this thread is any indication, the average Nat voter will be too distracted to take notice anyway.
It’s like the Annual General Meeting of the ADHD society. The title of the thread is ‘The Race is Close’ ie what so you think about the swings in the polls as the electorate processes the latest offerings from the National Party? Instead, practically every subject under the sun is discussed except for the actual subject of the thread….
SO in the spirit of the title here is an offering:
National are slearly entrenched in the eighties and when they display that they plummet in the electorate’s esteem therefore, they will lose the election.
Why, because Labour stand for an ideology which appeals more to the voter.
National have been handed on a plate every factor they need to win an election:
A tired arrogant PM and government
A perception that the economic boom has beeen wasted
A sense that the present govt is out of touch and corrupt
A new charismatic Nat leader
A sense that it is ‘time for change’
A self-serving EFB Bill
Retrospective legislation
Winston and his ‘baubles’
DBP
Carter
Burton
Tax
Pledge cards
surplus
Health fiasco
But they will lose the election unless they can learn hos to:
communicate with the electorate
communicate with the smaller parties (perhaps even including the Greens)
If you think this has merit, pitch in, otherwise keep talking about every f**n subject under the sun, except this….
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
You guys really do veer way right/left from the thread sometimes.
The point of this story – indeed the beauty of it – is that shallow popularism remains popular for exactly 5 minutes. Once the real policies of the neo-right come to the fore the people of New Zealand speak. And the latest poll has spoken.
And even before the health gaffes (is actually revealing the truth about your polcies a gaffe? Refer Hollow Men) and the sale of SOE’s is factored into the equation.
I am sure that JK is not sleeping soundly this weekend.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Lee fair call. Left vs right discussion became socialist vs capitalist became lifestyle and wealth comparisons.
I agree with your list. What worries me is that the mere fact that Helen has some photo ops, sound bites and print lines is enough to, apparently, have a bunch of voters swing back, ignoring this govts lousy track record. this is why the EFB is so important to Labour. dominate the media, muzzle opposing voices which will ensure contnued POWER
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
If the Nats appear neo-right to you, that says more about how far left we are. socialism anyone?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
You are right Lee
Vote:I apologise for winding up a few lefties on a quiet Sat
September 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Jeezuz, I’d already posted on this issue before this thread was started, but this comment is actually as relevant here as it was on the original thread. Maybe it will encourage Lee to stop bitching-
Election campaigns are merely contrived and idiotic events and will always be that when they are designed to appeal to the knee jerk reactions of uninformed random morons reacting to the telephone calls of pollsters.
The divergence and convergence of the polling lines tells the story. Key/National are only popular right now because for the time being, the random morons with their superficial political perceptions “like” them. as soon as Key/ national do something that can be portrayed as unpopular by Labour’s media minions, they will become unpopular. Its not the way to win government.
Success in government does not depend on the like or dislike of random morons. It depends on convincing or converting concerned electors to a certain policy and ideology. When there’s no basic differences, the random morons will control the elections.
National needs to stop pitching for the votes of the random morons, and present a more ideologically based package to the voters, one that offers a clear alternative to socialism. Of course, this is a strategy that would take some work, some effort, some political nous, the right policies, and the key ingredient of course, ideology.
Given the Nats have been white anted for a decade or more by the presence of liberals and progressives with ideas that better suit the Labour party, that key ingredient (ideology) is something they just cannot come up with. Until they solve this problem, the Nats won’t really ever win. Even when they’re in government, they’ll be doing Labour’s work.
Nats have to ditch the polling based strategy. Get back to the basics of conservatism. Stop selling sweets to kiddies and start selling policies to adults.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
yes, I agree krazy, It appears that short of catching the entire Labour Party on video, sacrificing virgins on an alter made up of refugee children and puppies, little will convince the electorate that labour are less than saintly.
The phenomenum is incredible: A masterstroke of media manipulation which has firmly planted the idea in the voters’ minds that Labour=good, despite the evidence to the contrary!
In my Ho Labour are the real party of the far-right, and have manaaged that most Orwellian technique of truth speak – where the public, once conditioned are content to accept any statement as truth regardless of the evidence which proves it to be contradictory.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Redbaiter if I respnd to your allegation that I am bitching I validate your tendency to =shall we say- veer from the topic. So I shan’t disagree. If I am bitching then fine. i already gave you the option to ignore what I said, and you appear to prefer that option – fine go ahead = I realise that this latest post is copied from another thread and fine, I agreed with it at the time,and still do.
One of the points I was trying to raise is; while we are all expending our energies ‘bitching’ with each other, the left is laughing all the wa to the polls.
I agree with you about policies to adults. I am pissed off with the tepid attitude of the Nat party. It is almost like they want to lose the next election….
My original complaint was that te average kiwiblogger seems to have no focus. if they are representative of the oppostiton to Labour, then the Nt Party don’t have a hope in hell of winning the next electio,
Rather they shoud be getting out ther and adressing the voters about the issues especially the EFB.
I agree that your response was relevent to the issue at hand, but some of the responses posted on this thread have been, in cloud cuckoo land…..
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 12:02 am
brendansheehan I have yet to be convinced that you are the real deal – you portray yourself as a champion of the working man with a hotline to God, but to my mind you are an opportunist demogogue who loves the sound-bite of his own opinion.
I predict a glowing future for you in the Labour Party, after all they are a collective of gravy-sucking sell-outs who plainly prefer to screw the democratic rights of the people in this country rather than promote their well-being.
And before we get into the Party-line about ‘big business’ and ‘hollow-men’, where was the public consultation on the EFB – a major constitutional issue drawn up behind closed doors to help bail the corrupt and bankrupt labour Party out of the shit because they had to repay the $800,000 the stole from the taxpayer?
What dragged the Labour Party kicking and screaming to minimum youth wages? Why do wages remain so low that it requires a benefit from government to top it up?
And why is it the union movement in NZ has suddenly become an ante=room for careerist ‘champions of the worker’ to jump into high salaried jobs as advisors or MPs for the Labour Party?
Keep up the ‘hollow men’ references brenden sheehan, your bosses in the you will surely notice what a good little lackey you are, and maybe offer you one of those high-salary list MP seats. All you have to do, is keep spouting the party line.
Which brings me to the thread – the Labour party will win the next election because they have successfully appropriated the traditional spheres of influence that once maintained the capitalists. They have the media sewn up, they issue sinecures and positions of power and influence to their lackeys, and they suppress the working classses with handouts and lolly-scrambles every so often to keep them compliant. They marginalise and divide – even bully and victimise those they dislike or disagree with – and finally alter the law so that freedom of association and political expression is regulated by them.
They have managed to so diversify the oppostion that no coherent voice is raised to revolt against them. Is it any wonder that a career-orientated acolyte like brenden would be driven to join them? if they were on the right wing, he would do the same, the only difference we would see would be his rationales and references for doing so.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 6:40 am
I can feel a new Redbaiter slogan coming on
“Vote for me random uninformed morons”
Thats another vote winner!
As for the poll, looks like National peaked a little early. It will be interesting to see how things develop after this weeks policy debacle.
Three more years?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Why do wages remain so low that it requires a benefit from government to top it up?
You’d have to ask employers that question.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I think you are right sonic it will be three more years of Labour in government. Matt McCarten makes an impassioned plea to the voters in the local election not to vote for the right wing candidates because they are going to sell public assets, and National have shown their true colours with their attitudes to his and to GPs. Coupled with the lolly scramble and Electoral Finance gag Labour should romp it.
Thrash you too are correct, I employed someone part time recently and refused to pay the minimum it is dog-food money.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:17 am
better to ask the unions i would have thought?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am
I am intrigued by his and others’ claims that Nat have a ‘secret’ agenda. It seems that the world and his wife, and then every man and his dog appear to know what it is. It must be the worst kept secret in parliament.
It certainly makes good ‘copy’ though to refer to somethng everyone knows about as a ‘secret’, really pumps up the Nat ‘sinister’ value.
The best kept secret has to be the little discussed aspect ot the EFB to ratify labours’ emergency legislation to validate their election overspend before its time limit.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:51 am
krazy I think the unions are really there as a finishing school for the reps to hone their public profiles and then get into parliament through the Labour party system. That is why the minimum wages are still dog-food money. But interestingly, MPs tend to get a hefty rise each year. Another badly-kept secret….
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:54 am
does anyone have average annual wage increases since 1999?
a rather enlightening graph could be assembled
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:56 am
“Why do wages remain so low that it requires a benefit from government to top it up?”
Because without a welfare dependent population the Labour Govt are sunk. That is why they introduced welfare up to twice the rich bastard threshold.
National need to campaign on how a Govt can claim to be sane when we have the following;
Rich = Earning > $60K
Vote:Poor = Earning
September 30th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Apologies for the last one it was off subject. What I came to say was my prediction for the next election is:
Greens up,
Winston gone
Hyde stays
Maori big up
Anderton out
Labour down but capable of forming coalition
Nats up and in coalition with the last cab off the rack – Maori party.
Regardless of result Key consolidates leadership of Nats.
Helen holds for a while then resigns for high profile university or overseas role, regardless of result – gone by 2009 Xmas?
This brilliant analysis was a mixture of despair, wishful thinking and gut feeling.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Make that;
Rich = Earning Over $60K
Poor = Earning less than $120K
Fruit loop policies of a desperate Govt seeking the elusive 3rt term. I wonder what bribes they will throw out to try and win a 4th term for NZ’s first retrospectively validated prime minister.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I think the electorate might take whatever Labour offers, then knife them at the polls. Why, because it would have dawned on most that Labour are only being ‘generous’ with what was already the electorate’s money in the first place.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Lee C
The problem we have is that families who are on good money are likely to accept the bribes – Use the WFF to buy a new 42″ plasma for the games room – that kinda stuff.
Real Labour voters must almost choke when they look at their pay checks and think… wow people earning twice what I earn are getting benefits for …. for what… so NZ’s first retrospectively validated PM can get her 4th term.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
better to ask the unions i would have thought?
Well considering that less than 25% of the workforce belongs to a union and that unions don’t actually pay the wages I think that asking the unions would be a misdirected question.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 10:09 am
well burt, I think what the voters need is a feel-good factor. While they are down inthe dumps, they will vote Labour because its like the abused spouse syndome isn’t it?
But I do not think National has anything to say that the voters want to hear, so their election campaign has to either try to get them angry or buoy them up with lots of goodies.
I think they should work at getting them angry and they should start like tomorrow! However the indications are that National’s leadership, try as it might to rack their brains for something, anything tangible with which to beat the government with, well can’t thing of a single thing…
If only there was an issue out there that they could use to really rile the electorate with….
Ah well , I suppose something will come along eventually.
Gosh, wouldn’t it be great if they could point the finger at the government and like expose them as a bunch of charlatans. That would be a brilliant issue to exploit. All you would have to do, is like go around the country and shout at people.
But sadly, Labour can’t seem to put a foot wrong. There is no great issue for National to exploit. Bugger!
Think, man think…..there must be some obscure piece of mendacity or double-dealing that Labour have committed which we could expose and exploit…
No nothing, ah well, in the meantime, I guess National could just keep putting out half-baked ideas which make them look like Darth-Vader in waiting.
I mean dammit!
If only there was an issue they could take to the voter something that only comes around once every generation… something which would hit every citizen in the country. It would be such a godsend for any half-astute political party.wouldn’t it? …. wait …what about?!?!
No. False alarm.
Vote:Nothing springs to mind.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Suck it up Tories – 2008 will deliver another centre-left government, and it’s gonna be another 3 years in opposition. That means 12 whole years out on your arses. Pretty poor performance for the “natural party of government” really.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Roger, a lot can happen in 12 months. I wouldn’t start crowing yet.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Lee C: “wouldn’t it be great if they could point the finger at the government and like expose them as a bunch of charlatans.”
Not possible. Labour can retaliate in the same way. For all their sakes it is better the status quo remains the same. Sure in question time and general debate, raise a hue and cry – sling the mud, and afterwards we will all go to Bellamy’s and drink to our stirling performances. All words – no deeds! Long may the system continue.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
After the poll-driven farce that was the last go-around, anyone who was feeling particularly ‘complacent’ wasn’t worth taking seriously in the first place. OTOH, the usual suspects on the left (Roger Nome, Sonic et. al.) don’t seem to have cashed the reality check either.
Golly, looks like the next year or so is going to be deja vu all over again…
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Except – I can’t wait to see their little faces when Helen announces her resignation.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Craig Ranapia
You seem to have missed my question.
Vote:I take it you are Maori.
As a Nat supporter do you believe the end can justify the means, when the race card is
played by the Nats?
September 30th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Lee C
I damn near choked on my coffee after reading
how the Maori party will go with the Nats.
Hmm, go with a party who believe that skin
Vote:colour should make a difference in compensation paid.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Lee,
Vote:Adding together the Lab and Green Votes in the last poll =46.8 which is higher then the election result =45.8
Looking at the last few elections the Lab/Green vote is always between 45 and 47% ( you can see the logic of having a third party campaign attacking the greens)
With the full artillery that the Nats unleashed on Lab and thier mates on the Greens at election 05. The vote still held at at 45/46%
I see no reason for this to change.
Factor in
This particular poll general overstates Nationals support
Helen’s superior political skills (this week, a good example)
Cullen having the money to eclipse the promises of National
National not being able to announce any policy thats radically differs from Labour without reminding us of the ghosts of that “Nasty Shipley ,Richardson et e,l that most of remember and shudder
So Yes National has no chance whatsoever
As I have said before the only hope of power in an MMP enviroment is to split into two parties National Lite and National Right
Although National Lite would probably only have a dozen or so MP at the mo
ciao
September 30th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
This whole left right thing that is going on at the moment is a bit of a con really isn’t it. Both National and Labour would rather govern alone and perpetuating the Labour give the poor and National give the rich mentality kinda suits both parties right now.
The race is close because the bulk of the punters (voters) haven’t really worked out yet that they actually don’t need to vote for Labour OR National. There are other choices and the policies of either “major” party would be just as effective if implemented with that party as a minor coalition partner. Labour offering confidence and supply to the greens, National offering confidence & supply to the Maori party – you get the idea.
MMP eh. FPP carefully wrapped up in a proportional representation feel good factor.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
so, grumpy, you believe in compenstaion. I’ll bet you $10.00 I’m right. (If I lose, you realise that means I’ll only have to pay you $4.50, of course) But if you lose, I want Taranaki back.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I kinda agree. There is desperately a need for a large centre party.
labour right meets national left. They are quite a few MPs from both sides who would find a home there.
At the moment the only leftish party one can vote for is the Greens and the conservative right have no where to go at all. which is not what MMP is all about at all.
So I guess it means as a left winger , I am just as frustrated by the choice available as someone on the right
You are right about people not getting a handle on MMP particularly with the electorate MP’s We can now vote for the best person regardless of the political affiliations with out effecting election outcomes (in most cases) how many people realise this ?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Robert Owen
Add to this that the major parties tend to campaign on “Two Ticks for us” mentality. Then they say that FPP is dead long live MMP.
So yes the message needs to get across that if the punters voted for the person their either most liked or though could do the most for them in their electorate and use their party vote to declare their political affiliation with policy mix.
It’s not a hard message to convey, I’ve never seen any advertising along that line of thinking from either major party.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 6:58 am
grumpyoldhori:
I didn’t “miss” you question, I was ignoring it for a reason – because I don’t take seriously anyone who plays the racist card every time they don’t like what they hear.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Craig Ranapia
You seem to be suggesting that Maori should
not question the beliefs of MPs like Henare.
If you believed the kiwi/iwi billboards, well and
Vote:good.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
Lee C
Nope, I believe compensation if paid, should be
the same for all for loss of land.
Maori party go with the Nats, will not happen
Vote:because they know come 2011, the seats would go back to Labour.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
grumpyoldhori: Hmm, go with a party who believe that skin
colour should make a difference in compensation paid.
Actually, you have that the wrong way around. At the last election the National Party was targeting their policies at need levels, rather than at skin colour. An example was the doctor’s visit policy, where it would be based on income levels.
The people targeting their policies at skin colour was predominantly Labour. And not in such a way that you would actually complain about it. See, justify for me how under Labour a region with a lower income with a predominantly caucasian population qualifies for a lower benefit than a mid-range income with a predominantly Maori population?
Is that Labour party policy targeting skin colour? Seems like you need to go read up a bit more grumpyoldhori. You’re only seeing it as a racist policy because the National Party was suggesting not paying a racist division of benefits.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
OF course the other way to make the race closer is for National to roll Key 4 months b4 the election and then get the new leader “bounce” in the polls.
Vote:The question is who ?
Maybe one of the last 3 deputy leaders
Nick Smith
Gerry Brownlee
or Bill English all of them have definite appeal.
I would go for Nick Smith myself
but hey thats me
October 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rob Owen
Nah, Labour will do their normal trick of consulting the polls and throwing lollies at the demographic that don’t like them. Eventually they will have pissed of all the groups they have tried to please and National will romp home. This might be 2008 now that thousands of teachers are now paying rich bastard tax.
I think that Dr. Ideologies biggest mistake was not lifting the rich bastard threshold this year, he’s now punishing more and more Labour voters. Pity he’s not smart enough to realise that if he left the threshold at 1999 levels long enough eventually minimum wage workers will be classified as rich.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
So what do we reckon an ideal party manifesto would be then?
I’ll kick it off for laughs….
1. Bring back the DP for treason
2. Doing anything major (i.e changing electoral system, taking away rights of citizens, sale of state assets) without mandate = treason
3. Bring in a bill requiring “prerequisite real qualifications” for any sort of influential post. So no childless people making policies about families.
4. No punishing of the masses for the crimes of the few (punish the few instead)
5. More freedoms, but greater consequences for abusing them.
6. Treat the public with respect, not as idiots. That also means don’t lie.
7. Make it an explicit crime to lie. If it is already, then enforce it. Ruthlessly. This means for starters indict the LTSA for lying to us all for years. And the IRD. And every politician.
I’m sure there are heaps more ideas out there…
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Burt He has has a Budget to come a possibly a few more “announcements” a bit closer to the election , like the interest student student loan thingee
Labour seem to be in poll position.
Key just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Seriously for Nationals sake, he needs to be rolled
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Only lie if there is a absolutely no chance of being caught.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
That’s what I was saying Robert.
He will throw lollies at the election. Budget 2008 will be the mother of all bribes as Dr. Ideology suddenly decides that for the first time (since they were polling below National) since 1999 tax cuts are affordable.
He will make a mockery of his previous position and the dim-bulb lefties won’t even notice that he’s just sucking up to the opinion polls.
It’s politics and it’s predictable. Nothing to do with Key – labour would denigrate any capable and successful person who stood against them.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
No Key really isn’t politically experienced enough , nice enough guy but..
Vote:Can you imagine leaders debates ..you may not like Helen but she will make mincemeat of him
I agree however that Cullen will do just that
I would be really fucked off if I was on the right of politics but I’m a power at all costs lefty ( sort of)
October 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
the only way you can guarantee you won’t get caught out for lying is if you don’t lie.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
PS I’d actually be surprised if Cullen offered tax cuts. There would be several problems for him in doing that:
1. reversal of dogma/hypocrisy issue
2. would just enter into a bidding war, since tax cuts are already on the cards with the Nats
3. Not a point of differentiation
I think he’ll come up with something else.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
more likely to do something like increasing govt contributions to Kiwisaver. In line with their ideology, is giving more money back etc etc, plus it allows them to effectively keep control over it – forced savings rather than allowing people to spend money on what they want.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Yes ADC i agree probably kiwisaver and few bucks up their sleeves in about July if the polls are going badly
Vote:And whilst I agree with you about the lying sometimes it is just worth the risk!
October 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Robert Owen
You are a contradiction.
Power at any price lefty ? Is there such a thing ? A lefty is a person who believes in the ideology of the left ? Is that Labour ?
A power at any price Labour apologist is something else all together. These people believe hollow election promises are valid to win elections, retrospective legislation is fine to cover up winning elections undemocratically etc etc.
A power at any price Labour supporter cannot by definition agree that telling lies is not worth the risk – telling lies is a requirement to be a power at any price Labour supporter.
So what are you Robert ?
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Ooops, I misread what you said above Robert. If you think telling lies is worth the risk then you must be a power at any price Labour supporter. These people are good at telling lies about how Labour looks after the interests of the poor etc. Watching the poor get poorer while you say you are helping them is probably worth the risk for a Labour supporter.
A lefty on the other hand would quickly turn against a Govt that punished the voter base it says it represents.
There is a big difference between a supporter of an ideology and a supporter of corruption.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Robert Owen
One more thing. Since it seems you are a power at any price Labour supporter…. I said above “…telling lies about how Labour looks after the interests of the poor etc…”
Now the natural response form a Labour supporter to this would be: Are you saying National look after the poor… or National policies make the poor worse off etc…
I’m not actually interested in what other parties are as bad as Labour, my point was about Labour – not about how they compare to the parties you would tell lies about to make Labour look good.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Burt, Labour is a left of centre party (only just) which I obviously have problems with but such is my ideology I would tell lies (and at least I am being honest in this respect) if the alternatives in my view were worse which in this case is the NATS
Vote:And in this real world we know that all parties tell porkies
(Except the greens and you have to admire them for that)
It a shame my honesty is so compromised but i guess a good knowledge of how the poor have been shafted for a few hundred years would probably explain it
I am off to watch the left wing drama spooks
ciao
October 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Pascal, you seem confused, all low income earners regardless of race get help.
But, when it comes to compensation for land
taken different rules apply.
Proof, easy, a billion dollars divided among
300,000 Maori give them around 3300 bucks
each.
While the farmers squatting on Maori land in
Vote:the Naki will get an average of a damn sight
more.
that is equal?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:28 pm
grumpyoldhori
This is an area the Maori party can make some major headway on. If there are 300,000 Maori people that are concerned about Maori issues then they should all vote for the Maori party with their party vote. Unite their voice through one vehicle.
They can vote for which ever party they want in their electorate but the Maori people of this country need to get the message that their vote split between left, right and indifferent parties is losing them representation.
Land is a natural issue to unite the Maori people.
Vote: