Two bad votes from National

April 22nd, 2010 at 6:00 am by David Farrar

Very disappointed in two first reading votes case last night by the Party.

The first was against the bill to allow a separate youth (went down 5-117). Not only is this a u-turn from the previous position (National voted against Labour abolishing them in 2008), but it is bad public policy. The record high youth unemployment is partly due to young unskilled workers having been priced out of the market.

I wouldn’t be so annoyed if National was voting against it after it had been to select committee. But by voting it down, they are saying we don’t even want to hear the pros and cons of whether having a separate youth minimum wage could help get more young people into work.

The second bad vote is the party vote against the bill to allow New Zealanders to vote on whether or not they wish to be be a republic.

I’m really pissed off that they made it a party vote. National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently, where they are whittling down the number of issues MPs traditionally are not whipped on. They even want to remove conscience voting on alcohol. There are MPs in National (and many party members) who support NZ becoming a Republic, and they should have been allowed to say so.

And what is even more galling, is that National voted this down at first reading. I’m not advocating that the bill (in its current form) should have been voted into law automatically. But if National had allowed it to go to select committee, it would have allowed the public of New Zealand to submit on how they think the decision on republic vs monarchy should be made. That would have been an invaluable exercise.

National has denied us all the right to have our say – both on youth minimum wage rates and on our head of state.

I don’t have a problem with a party voting down a bill at first reading when they are ideologically against it (ie do not expect National to support a bill that made unions compulsory) or it seeks to reverse Government policy. But with most other issues, they are worthy of sending through to a select committee, so the public can have their say on them.

My thanks to the Labour (excluding Jim Anderton), United Future  and Green parties that supported the Republic Referendum bill, and supported allowing the public a say.

Tags: , , , ,

67 Responses to “Two bad votes from National”

  1. Clint Heine (1,568 comments) says:

    What was the vote numbers for the second bill?

    I fear that the Nats, who are against minimum youth wages, will also show their red side on the Voluntary Student Unionism bill too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. berend (1,673 comments) says:

    What would one expect from the national SOCIALIST party?

    DPF: National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently

    Only recently? John Key just signed us up to UN overlords. The man is borrowing $250 million a week and will be just the same disaster as Helen Clark. NZ, gliding down, to the joy and desire of the lefties, as just another Pacific Island, and everyone capable of earning money will have left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    HMMM, Like many others of us you are learning that the Nats. are not what they project but are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    And like us you will learn that you cannot change them from within.
    More realizations to come.

    Welcome to the world of the disenfranchised voter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lindsay (142 comments) says:

    Surprised to see ACT also voting against the Republican bill. Don’t they usually push the freedom of choice line? 100 percent agree with you DPF about the authoritarian streak. If National wants to remove the conscience vote on alcohol related matters then we can look forward to the drinking age going back up and heading towards a zero alcohol driving limit. The whole ‘elect us if you want rid of nanny state’ was a con. With this lot we are going to see more of the punishing- everyone- for- the- sins- of- a- few approach.

    And the other bad vote yesterday was for Paul Quinn’s bill to further disenfranchise prisoners. I simply cannot see what this achieves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. berend (1,673 comments) says:

    Lindsay, it look forward to your campaign to let prisoners have a vote. Really, why someone who is locked up for good reasons should be allowed to get out and into the voting booth is something you must explain one day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    Delighted with the vote against the Republican referendum. If you think we need another bunch of crooked pollies in this country manoeuvring things to their advantage think again.

    Before any attempt to vote or even consider this thing, we need the extensive consultations to provide a written constitution acceptable to 75% of the population Then maybe the wriggle room which has built many of the Republican Dictatorships in the world can be overcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    27% youth unemployment! and this is their response. Is it old people frightened for their own jobs? Parliamentarians are not likely to be sacked tomorrow( more the pity).
    Inter generational theft. Theft of potential.
    Theft of learning possibilities.
    No different to the last National Govt. who did the same to the last lot of young people.
    !990′s and the unemployment of the young was similar and what did we get. People leaving NZ, (maybe that’s what they want so the Hori’s can have it all back( and a generation who have lived off welfare because no one cared nor bothered.
    Worse than that appalling act of Monday. totally disgraceful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pongo (371 comments) says:

    All part of Keys “step change”, add being a fast follower on the ETS. At least with Clark you knew you voting for an autocratic socialist who looked after her constituency, personally I am confused now why I voted for Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tvb (4,242 comments) says:

    You are dead wrong on the Republican Bill. To force a measure of this constitutional importance and saying the select committee process is sufficient is simply WRONG. I would have voted against this Bill even if I was whipped to vote for it. Let the proponents set up a referendum. Let the public vote on that and then if it is supported THEN bring in a Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    Yes the public should have the say and a referendum must take place, but kiwi governments don’t take any notice of referendums, so it will be what Uncle John decides and all the moronic kiwis’ gp bah bah bah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,294 comments) says:

    It’s a real shame National didn’t allow the youth minimum wage bill to pass. Why are they against examining that?

    I’m philosophical about the Republican bill. I think it’s a bit too soon for NZ to properly grow up as a nation, too many still don’t want to leave mummy England even though the UK virtually kicked us out of home decades ago. And the really childish ruled out this bill simply because Locke initiated it.

    The result of these bills and the prisoner voting bill (pandering to the “get tough, stuff the consequences” brigade) show National as inconsistent – with some things they are prepared to do what they think is right for the country, on others like these they are willing to shun fair democratic process to try ans shore up some support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    David, my sympathies. Your crazy one man campaign to secure the role as the first president of NZ for Helen Clark has suffered a setback.
    Why is parliament wasting time on shit like this? Is their nothing else that needs fixing or changing that might actually improve things in NZ?

    [DPF: My republic would exclude current and former MPs from being appointed President]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    And what is even more galling, is that National voted this down at first reading. I’m not advocating that the bill (in its current form) should have been voted into law automatically. But if National had allowed it to go to select committee, it would have allowed the public of New Zealand to submit on how they think the decision on republic vs monarchy should be made. That would have been an invaluable exercise.

    I disagree. A bill that poorly drafted on so important an issue should not have any more time spent on it.

    When republicans are serious about having a real debate, they’ll come up with a non-stupid bill actually worth discussing. If they’re not going to take themselves seriously by pushing a bill that flawed, I don’t see why anyone else should take them seriously.

    And if your concern is really about allowing the public of New Zealand to have their say on how the decision on republic vs monarchy should be made then get a select committee to hold an inquiry. Take the information gleaned from that to help you draft a bill and then go down that route.

    When National wanted to change the Electoral Finance laws, they conducted a three-stage consultation process. Two stages of which occurred before legislation was even drafted. Why you think the republic is less important than this, and should go straight to a bill and referendum, I don’t know, but it doesn’t make very much sense to me.

    [DPF: The bill had flaws, but rather than just vote it down, it would have been nice for National to give some indication of how those who want constitutional change can progress it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inventory2 (10,168 comments) says:

    The Head of State Bill was advanced by Keith Locke. Why would National want to support his agenda?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    The whole ‘elect us if you want rid of nanny state’ was a con.

    Wasn’t it just! Nothing creates enmity and mistrust faster than a broken promise of freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Republicanism is a minority agenda, you got bitch slapped back to the minors. Suck it up.

    We’ve got more pressing issues with seperatism already. Civil wars are always a smidge more straigt forward then they’re two way rather than three way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. OliverI (125 comments) says:

    Murray FTW!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. budgieboy (107 comments) says:

    Another day, another disappointment!

    John Philip Key and his pinkish little Govt continue to sap the hope of all those that voted for them.

    Mind you, had National advanced this Bill both TV Networks would have collectively wet their panties for the first 20 minutes of tonight’s Network News Broadcast(s).

    Until this country can produce a politician that has the Nut’s to stand against the pricks that set the socialist agenda on a nightly basis we are doomed to live this bullshit forever.

    John Philip Key is NOT that man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Why would National want to support his agenda?

    If he put up a bill advocating a youth wage, you’d be against it then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wreck1080 (3,799 comments) says:

    National=Labour.

    Mathematically correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Well – DPF – Id be really pissed off if they had passed the republic bill simply on the whim of someone who used to think Pol Pot was good guy.

    We have far more serious challenges facing us (like the ETS – which is potentially a far more important matter than who the head of state is next year) and to suddenly throw this sort of major constitutional thing into the mix would be just stupid. Look at whats happened with the indigenous peoples thing. Enterred into without much thought – but its going to be a major distraction – while we continue to fall down the OECD list, violent crime continues to rise and we still borrow 250 million a week to finance our parlous state.

    Its like a tui billboard – a vote on the head of state will solve all these problems – yeah right!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tvb (4,242 comments) says:

    And another thing who could trust Keith Locke on the Republican agenda. Next he will be wanting to put one of pol pot’s hench men or worse as our Head of State. Wrong man pushing the wrong issue in the wrong way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    One bad vote for National. Youth unemployment is through the roof as you quite correctly point out and if youth are going to be employed we need market forces at work to determine what they are to be paid,not the state mandating what the wages should be (which is socialism).

    You would think this would be a major difference between Labour and National. Labour has always had a touch of socialism about it while National is supposed to be about free enterprise. What is National about? What are their core principles? Does anyone know?

    Agree with others re republicanism- a vote for republicanism is a vote for Helen Clarke as President of NZ- that will happen if we become a republic anytime soon.

    Good to see National stick up for one conservative principle-first do no harm. Republicanism would be harmful in my opinion as it would denigrate the time honoured values that once made us great.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. GJ (329 comments) says:

    Yes but the voters have to take their fair share of responsibility for this mess. Many had wanted change, but without having to vary the way they traditionally voted. The only two alternatives in the eyes of the majority of voters and the press was Labour or National who always obviously ask for both ticks
    Let me state I did not vote for MMP to come in, however come in it did and in my opinion we have never used it or worked it for the benefit of the voter.
    For the last two elections I watched Paul Adams (often bagged simply for being a Christian, yet has been a very successful sportsman and businessman) in East Coast Bays. The first time he stood as an Independent and achieved some 5500 aprox votes. The next time he was with the Family Party which I still say had some of the best policies especially when you consider what we are currently upset about happening in the Nation.
    Again he was not asking for the Party Vote but the candidate vote. He wanted to represent East Coast Bays and consistently said if he did not perform for the electorate then the electorate could remove him. Isn’t this what we are really wanting? East Coast Bays could have had effectively had two MP’s! Mc Cully was high up on the Party list and was going in any way!
    Yet the Electorate just didn’t get it which really amazed me. If we had a half a dozen good Independent MP’s responsible to their electorates we might start to see a Parliament more in tune and voting for the desires of the majority instead of Bull at the gate Dictatorships.
    Personally I hope he has another go as it may have just been an idea before its time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,294 comments) says:

    GJ, I don’t know anything about Paul Adams but I agree with your ideal – to vote for the best candidate for an electorate regardless of what party they stand for. But I doubt you could educate enough voters or media to buy into that approach.

    Especially with increasingly fuzzy differentiation (or no differentiation) between parties in many respects, quality of MP is more important than party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Crampton (215 comments) says:

    I really don’t like National’s move on the minimum wage, but I can understand it: it would lose more votes than it would gain, even if it helped kids get jobs. I would have thought they’d have at least let it get to committee, and if the evidence there presented wasn’t strong enough to build public support, I could forgive them for being less than courageous on it. Their being too cowardly to even let it get to committee is very disappointing; I wonder if they had some really adverse polling numbers.

    I could even forgive all this “let’s not do anything to upset people” strategy if it were saving powder for a really good budget to come. If the budget too is a disappointment, though, at what point would you recommend that economic liberals not vote National?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    [DPF: My republic would exclude current and former MPs from being appointed President]

    Phew! No chance of President Lhaws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Phew no chance of El Presidenti Commrade Minsstress either. You’ll just have to keep living with that fantasy in your head toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BlairM (2,304 comments) says:

    Before any attempt to vote or even consider this thing, we need the extensive consultations to provide a written constitution acceptable to 75% of the population.

    Agree 100%. The republican issue is the least of our constitutional worries. It would be nice to have a proper NZ Head of State, but let’s get the important bits sorted out first.

    I actually understand National voting it down. They would be MAD to support it – they’d have a mass membership exodus if they even entertained it. National’s base and funding would collapse, and John Key is not going to be the first National PM not to win three terms! Sux, but that’s politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Can’t say that I am upset about National voting down the republic rubbish, although, Toads suggestion of President Michael Laws is bloody tempting.

    Highly pissed off at the way the National Socialists shafted Sir Roger though, he (Sir Roger) is right, National are all mouth and trousers in opposition and gutless fucking wonders in Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    When I hear Trevor Mallard agreeing with Key and the National Party then I know for sure that its all wrong.
    Trev and the Nats. don’t want our kids to be entitled to learning nor work at a reasonable cost.

    Bring back Guy Fawkes for the place. They are just appalling.
    It beggars belief that 117 supposedly rational intelligent human beings (ok they are politicians), can be forced by leadership to vote a corrupt position like this.
    For corrupt it is.
    Contempt of the electorate and utter contempt for the rights of employees (prospective) and employers.
    Contempt of young people wanting to learn new things.
    time for Key to resign and go back to the bully boy at Lehmans. Which is what we were warned he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    [DPF: My republic would exclude current and former MPs from being appointed President]

    What about sith lords. Cant trust those tricky bastards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Simce we’re in fantasy land and DPF is the king of world dictating what our plitical system will be for us how about driods?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,294 comments) says:

    Are driods the opposite of wetods?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    First one I agree with you on. Second one is an attack on our Sovereign and an unholy alliance of the far left and the republican right so it deserved to die an early death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. goonix (140 comments) says:

    Can’t believe you support this party DPF. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Oh – I see DPF !!!. Your republic would exclude current and former MPs from being appointed President.

    Well my republic would exclude ex PM’s, ex mayors, ex members of the maori party, ex clergy, and anyone else that I didnt like.

    You see the stupidity of trying to rush this sort of thing thru – we’ve all got different ideas of the what ‘our’ republic would look like.
    Just imagine the shambles if keith ‘Pol Pot’ locke’s bill had passed – then wed have to vote on some slapped together referendum that the MPs would set. Hell no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    The French constiuent assembly ruled themselves out of the follwing legislative assembly elections. Those were the winners who gave us the revolutionary wars and the terror.

    Slick learning from history there DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    I’m not upset about the republican thing either, or the youth wage, but then I’m not that young and I believe in leaving the Monarchy as it is; however, there are a few things I am upset with Jonky about, like the smacking law (and there was a perfect chance to debate that when Boscawen’s bill was drawn), the ETS, the UN Indigenous rubbish etc…

    I remember when I was at my last job and talking to a guy there who was near retirement age and saying that we had to get rid of Labour. He told me that they’re all the same. He said, just wait if National gets it, you’ll see. I didn’t believe him of course, but then I’m not old enough to have had the experience he had.

    He was right, even though we had to get rid of Red Helen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Fletch – then you know what to do next time. Since theyre all the same, at least vote for entertainment…………..

    Winnie!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. mpledger (429 comments) says:

    There are not enough jobs to go around.

    If the youth rates went down so that young people got jobs then they would be put in jobs that would have gone to older workers at higher rates. I don’t think that is a good idea – the same number of people are unemployed but wages are depressed. The people with greater skill, the ones who *should* be rewarded (over those with less skill), if we want to build a a knowledge economy, miss out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jaime Raine (46 comments) says:

    You guys are fucking retarded if you ever thought National cared about principles.

    Voting for youth wages would have alienated female voters.

    Voting for a republic would have alienated elderly voters.

    John Key only cares about one thing – votes. He’s not on 50% ‘cos he gives a shit about principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,820 comments) says:

    Good to see that Republic rubbish sent packing.

    For the Queen!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    God bless her and all who sail in her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    There are not enough jobs to go around

    Wrong. The pool of available jobs changes along with the cost of filling any demand . If the govt legislated for a minimum adult wage of $30/hr the total pool of jobs would be decimated and unemployment would skyrocket. Lowering the cost of filling demand would create more jobs and lower unemployment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Decimated you say, so a loss of 10% of jobs? Can you quantify that or do you not understand the word decimate that well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Murray, I believe decimated means a 90% loss, and I used the word with that knowledge

    [DPF: Nope means 10% loss or 1 in 10 are decimated]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    I was reading a novel recently where a medieval army commander used the Roman form of decimation as punishment.

    A unit selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing. The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat and forced to sleep outside of the Roman encampment.
    Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction.

    So it was particularly cruel in that you would have nine soldiers having to kill a comrade and friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    Today’s question and voting on Yahoo!Xtra –

    Should NZ keep a British monarch?
    Thanks for voting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    Today’s question and voting on Yahoo!Xtra so far –

    Should NZ keep a British monarch?
    7355 votes since Apr 21 2010

    Yes, let’s keep a British monarch 66% 4835 votes
    No, let’s elect a president 31% 2266 votes
    Don’t know 3% 254 votes

    Sorry for the double post. The blog threw a wobbly when I pasted. Must have had some returns in there or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I stand corrected. Thanks DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. s.russell (1,580 comments) says:

    I can understand why National block voted against the republican referendum – it would be a major distraction from more important issues – especially when there is already to be a referendum on MMP.

    And I agree (partly with tvb: “Let the proponents set up a referendum. Let the public vote on that and then if it is supported THEN bring in a Bill.”

    We should have a referendum on this when and only when there is real public demand for it – not just because a few MPs want it (and I say this as a republican).

    Besides, it was be stupid and pointless of them to push this now, when the result would be “No”. My message to Locke: Be patient and wait for a better moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    Youth rates versus making stuff in China.
    As a person who has employed, trained and supported young people for near on 40 years and one who has a good number of grandchildren I now face a choice when I decide where I am going to fabricate my new, world saleable device. A device that is very basic engineering and would be useful for teaching some skills.
    I would prefer to make it in NZ, prefer to pay some young to do the work but I can have it made in China for a lot less even than youth rates would allow.
    If I chose to have it made in China everyone in NZ loses. No jobs, no paye, no skills taught, no rent paid, no freight costs paid etc etc etc. No company nor personal tax aid for I will also ensure that the income is made tax effective.

    Is this our children’s future? No work ever for those young people that want practical things to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. backster (2,122 comments) says:

    Not to even consider Youth Rates seems illogical and in line with Trade Union Dogma. It’s time the Party itself called the Government into line to follow the principles on which the party was founded….I agree though that the Republican nonsense is a wasteful diversion which would solve none of the Nation’s pressing problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Krazy decimated is Latin. Specifically it is a punsihment for cowardice where every tenth man chosen by lot is beaten to death by his comrades.

    One of the most missued terms by the modern media. Frankly I wouldn’t mind seeing some actual decimation, its considered to be very good for morale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    remember all those nanny-state posts you made during the clark era..?..there..dpf..?

    maybe you could recycle them..?

    just change a coupla names..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    DPF notes:

    National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently

    And commenters leap in to lament it (and I agree entirely FWIW). But the authoritarian streak is epitimised by the very same Ministers that some of those commenters usually worship – “Crusher” Collins, “Draw Me a Picture” Bennett et al.

    Tough when it’s you on the receiving end of these people’s we-know-best-screw-the-rest-of-you arrogance, isn’t it?

    Fact is, you can’t expect people to introduce blunt weapons on some issues and act with finesse on others. They wield blunt weapons because that’s all their capable of conceiving (that and how they can get thenselves re-elected for another term’s troughing). So when the issue switches from crime prevention to constitutional considerations, or from punishing the poor for being poor to liquor licensing, they reach for the club, not the rapier.

    There are MPs in National (and many party members) who support NZ becoming a Republic, and they should have been allowed to say so.

    So come preselection and list ranking time we can expect to see these statist control freaks voted down, then? Somehow I’m not holding my breath for these National MPs and ordinary members to assert the kind of principles in which National once believed. Indeed I predict a definite testosterone deficit when the time comes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..God bless her and all who sail in her…”

    do you know something..we and phil the greek don’t..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    Sometime either recently or soon there is a bill about voting when union members are going on strike. Seem to recall Trev talking about it in the last day or so. Now if I recall correctly that is a National Members Bill.

    and here’s the point.
    If union members must vote with a secret vote i.e. to prevent intimidation and collusion why then should Parliament not be forced to vote in the same manner.
    Both would be right and the 117 to 5 vote would be no longer. MP’s would then be mindful of their constituents rather than the bully who wants his own way.

    If we are going to have electoral reform lets start first with those charged with representing the electors for while the archaic practice of bullying aka “whipping” remains, democracy and representation of the elector exists in name only.
    Whipping is both bullying and also a cop out strategy for those spineless enough not to have any self respect nor respect for the voter.

    In case you think that whipping is an OK practice try asking OSH if it would be allowed in a workplace. And need I remind you the Parliament after all is a workplace.
    HMMM think I might write to OSH and ask for an investigation into the intimidatory tactics that are used in that particular workplace and known as whipping.
    That could be fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    DPF

    “National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently”

    That is a bit rich coming from you given you are the one who wants to see 365 day shopping for no other reason than you are ideologically opposed to forced holidays.

    [DPF: Oh BB only you can see opposition to compulsion as authoritarian]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    listen to some common sense.
    Minimum youth wage is $510 for 40 hours.
    But if I’m 16 or 17 and could earn 400 for those 40 hours I am am not allowed by law but I can go on the dole for $150..
    or crime for a lot more..

    http://clintheine.blogspot.com/2010/04/we-care-pity-about-others.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Clint Heine (1,568 comments) says:

    Viking2 – yep. That was a damn fine speech by Sir Roger. At least somebody is standing up for the unemployed youth.

    Makes me sick, the Nats voted against the Labour bills in opposition and we all thought that was because they gave a toss, now we have no idea what they stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Viking2 (11,251 comments) says:

    As always, nothing Clint.
    And that’s despite their professed principles on their website.
    But no its about power and power in politicians hands is about corruption.

    I have just posted some idea’s on the voting system that we apparently need to change again.
    My contention is that its nit the voting system that needs changing but the responsibility of MP’s towards their electors rather than to their party. He who has the money rules and of course that’s the parties in NZ.

    Would indeed be interesting to outlaw Political Parties and make every politician stand on their own two feet.
    I think that’s what happens in the USA with Sheriffs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,294 comments) says:

    There are advantages in having parties, probably essential to compete for a fair share of funds.

    A party of Independents? With a guarantee that every vote is a “conscience” vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    DPF

    “[DPF: Oh BB only you can see opposition to compulsion as authoritarian]”

    Not at all DPF, but I do recognise a huge bit of hypocrisy when I see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “DPF

    “[DPF: Oh BB only you can see opposition to compulsion as authoritarian]”

    Not at all DPF, but I do recognise a huge bit of hypocrisy when I see it.”

    Really? Then take a look in the mirror and try and justify your supposed support of freedom most of the year with your fascist love of State control of peoples lives at holiday weekeds comrade…

    Just how is it “authoritarian” to support peoples rights to liberty re their choice about working and trading whenever THEY choose? Its you waving the gun about Bruv….not DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    James

    “re their choice about working and trading ”

    That is my point, most workers would not have the choice.

    But you know that….

    By the way James, I hope you will be protesting at the dawn parade this coming Sunday, just imagine, there is a whole 12 hours coming up when you cannot shop.

    I fear it might kill you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.