This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Why should John Key repeal the law? The referenda question did not say should S.59 be repealed. That doesn’t mean John Key should ignore it. It certainly doesn’t he mean he should just clarify the law. Frankly, I don’t think National should act in haste. But I do think Key and National need to have a proper discussion with New Zealand involving a new inquiry and discussion forums on this legislation and if there is legitimate and conclusive evidence people want the law changed then change it.
This is no valid comparison, considering the inherent bias of the referendum question. Perhaps it would be more comparable if at the polling booth we were asked whether we would cast a vote for national as an example of good electoral behaviour… Comparing a non-biased poll with a biased one is a statistical dead end.
Election results: East Coast Bays
10:39AM Sunday Nov 09, 2008
Candidate results: ADAMS, Paul Family Party 3275 , BRADFORD, Sue Green Party 1969 , GOLDSMITH, Vivienne (Viv) Labour Party 5628, HUTTON, Toby No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party 258, JONES, Dail New Zealand First Party 683, KRONFELD, Tim ACT New Zealand 1149,
McCULLY, Murray National Party 18,428, McINNES, Ian United Future 200, ZAMORA, Elah Libertarianz 50
Yes,so what, is this a single issues that will be taken into account along with other issues at the time of the next election. Can you see the Labour Party wanting to repeal this law, can you see United Future/Kiwi Party/ Dynasty (or what ever Pope Brian calls it theses days) coming up with a complete series of policies that will appeal to thinking voters. The threat is of course we will split the vote and have you out of power but would not this be a case of cutting off your nose to spite you face, in most cases the leading “no” voters can not stand the Labour Party but what they are threatening to do is to allow a Labour victory.
Another way of looking at the numbers is by comparing them to the 2008 turnout.
2008 election turnout was 79.46%, I think it’s fair to say that this is the percentage of eligible voters that’re at all interested in politics in NZ.
79.46% of eligible voters at the time of the referendum was 2,386,181 people.
1,420,959 NO votes out of 2,386,181 people that would bother to vote even in a general election is a 59.55% NO result, even if you accept that every single person that would normally vote but didn’t opposes the law.
Also, Peter is absolutely correct in that people need to take a closer look at their options when voting. ACT was the only party you could vote for safe in the knowledge that you’d be voting against the anti-smacking law and it’s unfortunate that more people didn’t realise that.
DPF, it is quite misleading to characterise the referendum as “No to correctional smacking as a criminal offence.” Like me, you know perfectly well that including the word “good” made the question hopelessly leading, and the result valueless as a measure of public opinion on the particulars of the law. The question asked was effectively a truism – whether good things should be illegal.
For example, do you think the result would have been the same if the question had been framed: “Should beating your children until they scream be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
[DPF: No one is wanting the proposition you suggest. There have been a dozen polls done over many years on the anti smacking law. Every single one shows 80%+ are against it. The referendum is in line with those polls. Removing the word good would make minimal difference I submit. This is an issue that has been deated vigorously for over two years. The public are not stupid and know what they were voting about.]
Politicians, aren’t they priceless. If one wins a seat with a five vote advantage “the people have spoken” is yelled from the rafters. When 1.4 million vote for change we are told we are confused and don’t understand, go figure. If a party got 1.4 million votes the bastards would declare a bloody weeks holiday for the whole country.
I voted for the party that supports the policies I want. That’s why I didn’t support Act. Oh and I didn’t support the other two parties that one could vote for safe in the knowledge that you’d be voting against the anti-smacking law, either.
dave 7.16pm So who do you vote for or do you stay at home and hope that none of the parties you can not support get to a position to form a government. Does your vote hang on one issue or do you look at the big picture.
“When you add the yes vote and the spoilt vote to the number of voters who didn’t vote at all the figures are about even,” says Bradford.”
and Banardos say:
“”Half the population either doesn’t care, or half the population thinks the law’s okay, have chosen not to vote and have expressed their democratic view that way.”
What should we make of those who didn’t vote?
a. Don’t care if the law stays; don’t care if the law goes?
b. happy to let those who take the trouble of answering the question and then posting it decide?
c. are non voters expecting their lack of action to be taken as representing their wishes in some way?
Making smacking an offence (enforced or not) is like giving official validation to a set of ideas that the majority don’t agree with and (by implication) they don’t accept the competence of the people behind those ideas.
I voted no not just against the law but also the intent of those in government to instil an edge of fear in parents that they could use to manipulate them, holding the threat of state intervention over families that disagree with their ideology.
How do we know how many people answered No to the question, but want to leave section 59 as is? This wouldn’t be an inconsistent position to take would it? The problem with this referendum is not so much the question, but the binary Yes/No answer which cannot be directly interpreted into a course of action.
The spin in it by dour-faced cow Sue Bwadford and the rest of the dumb left is tremendous. No, it wasn’t a biased poll, yes, it did fairly set out what the anti-smacking law has done and yes, people hate it and do want it changed.
But God forbid anyone get in the way of the scumbag Greens and their precious social agenda.
All you folk who voted “No” in the referendum, along with the fundies like Baldock and McCrosky, should really ask yourselves what message you send to youngsters when you call upon the State to provide you with the legal backing to hit and assault them. Next you’ll be wanting to hit your pets for correctional purposes. There is no justification for hitting children for correctional purposes. Many countries in the West, apart from one or two that shall remain nameless, have banned torture, the death penalty and whacking kids in schools. Slowly but surely progressive countries are removing the legal right to whack kids at home. It’s just so barbaric and punitive!
“Something I have wondered, and perhaps DPF knows, is what correlation if any there is between the vote in the referendum and there people have raised children?.”
It would be interesting to know how many people voted “No” in the referendum whose offspring are beyond childhood years. Let’s hope modern day parents are far more enlightened and less violent and reactionary towards their children. Thankfully parenting books and child psychologists seldom advocate smacking children.
A little part of me actually hopes that John Key will ignore the wishes of those who made the effort to vote and, if so, I hope as a consequence there’s a very strong backlash against the Nats from their ‘no’ voting supporters. I say this for no other reason than perhaps a resounding kick up the backside to one of the political parties from the general public might be enough to make them all take CIR’s more seriously in the future.
The Nat’s appear to me like they think they have the next election in the bag already. A fall from those dizzying heights might be enough to make them (and all other politicians) never forget who pays the bills.
Of course, I’d rather John just changed the bloody law in the first place.
David, congratulations on a brilliantly illuminating factoid.
peteremcc’s comment is worth restating:
“If National had got 5% less at the election and ACT had got 5% more at the election, the law would already be gone.
“Vote for the party that supports the policies you want and you’ll get them.
“Vote for the party that can’t decide what policies they support and…
“Anyone that voted National after they supported the law, only has themselves to blame.”
If all those ACT-turned-National voters haven’t spotted it before, it must now be dawning on them that there’s a yawning chasm of difference between ACT’s commonsense, principled policies and the National Populists’ worshipping of the Great God Pragmat.
What’s interesting is that the gap would now seem to be wider than that which separates Clark and Key.
(Remember: Key promoted Clark, his government is outspending hers by $8 billion a year, and – for now – he seems to be prepared to die in a ditch for her most odious policy of intervening in parental discipline.)
ACT has a golden opportunity to point all this out, in words of very few syllables, in places where the public can see them. If the budget can’t run to billboards, I suggest walking sandwich boards.
Because they saw Don Brash as the electable face of ACT.
It just goes to show that it’s all in the branding: ACT policies got 39.1% of the vote in 2005.
Yet those same people who deserted ACT for the best of reasons in 2005 (because those policies had far more chance of coming to fruition under National than ACT) have failed to return, despite the National Party having long since abandoned those policies and adopted many of Labour’s.
Therefore, one can only conclude that those people prefer the personality of John Key to the principles of Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas.
ACT cannot hope to win them back until they clearly spell out what they stand for, and why their policies will work better for all New Zealanders, especially the poorest.