National Conference votes to keep it 18
July 17th, 2010 at 4:24 pm by David FarrarYay. The main floor of the National Party conference just voted (around 60% in favour) to support a remit calling for the purchase age of alcohol to remain 18, but to enforce current law more effectively.
That’s a huge victory, and big ups to the Young Nationals who spoke well in favour of it. To win over the majority of delegates who are almost all aged over 40 is a great testament to the power of logical argument.
The vote is not binding on MPs (the only MPs I saw with their hands up were David Bennett and Nikki Kaye, but I couldn’t see them all) but it will be of some influence that their own party conference basically said that raising the purchase age was the wrong response to the right problem. There was good discussion that a better course of action is to target supply of alcohol to those aged under 18.
They also after the remit announced the results of the board election, The three candidates elected (in order) were Peter Goodfellow, Roger Bridge and Malcolm Plimmer.
Related posts:
- National conference votes for same sex adoption
- Nats vote for same sex adoption
- My 100th National Party conference
- National Conference wrapup
July 17th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Wonder if they could use logic to convince the fogies that it makes no sense to have alcohol legal when far less harmful drugs (BZP, Cannabis) are illegal.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
The commonsense option. It would solve nothing raising the age but changing nothing on enforcement – it would be easier but wouldn’t address the problems.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I don’t see why you think the age of delegates is relevant, unless you believe that people’s opinions are determined purely by self-interest.
I’m closer to 50 than to 40 but I absolutely do not support increasing the alcohol purchase age (or the driving age for that matter). The vast majority of people in that age range are capable of acting responsibly, always have been, and always will be.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“I don’t see why you think the age of delegates is relevant, unless you believe that people’s opinions are determined purely by self-interest.”
Quite so bruce. It’s almost impossible to conceive that a thinking student would have voted Labour just because it would have saved countless thousands on their student loan.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
@Johnboy: The operative word would be “purely”, I think, although it’s not really proved by this result, as for the majority of those over the age, the raising of the liquor age or not will not impact on their self-interest (outside getting their own point of view across – which could be for, against or ambivalent – although ambivalence would render neither a “yes” or “no” necessary).
“The three candidates elected (in order) were Peter Goodfellow, Roger Bridge and Malcolm Plimmer.”
Whaleoil will not be happy.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
It is irrelevant how the delegates voted, this government has already shown that it has no interest in what its members think, nor does it care what the people of NZ think on various issues.
Key and his close confidants are determined to maintain power for the sake of it and to steer NZ down a middle, left leaning, socialist road.
While I am on the issue of Socialists, has anybody reminded Nikki Kaye that she really should be standing for Labour at the next election?
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
True JiveKitty perhaps the delegates saw something in Shonkey/God that the rest of us are starting to miss.
Vote:“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).”
Kris may have an opinion on this!
July 17th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Good to say good sense has prevailed all round.
Big bruv, you don’t appear to be a spokesman for the national party.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Tim
Are you suggesting that National have banned free speech ?
Actually, don’t bother answering that, we know they have.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Well, Johnboy, there is the difference – I can see Shonkey/God, but I still don’t know if I believe in him.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Bruv’s right. The Nats have ignored almost every public wish from smacking law changes to ACC privatization to lower taxes to student loans to the ETS. and so on and so on.
Track record worse than Clark.
Still they smile nicer whilst shafting everyone.
P.S. Breaking News.
Vote:Reports of speeding Diplomatic Car enroute to Wellington for the rugby.
Can anyone confirm?
July 17th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I wonder what the vote on keeping the ETS will be…………………..?
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“voting” on booze age. Sorry but that’s lame.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
heh the real news from the conference whale oil is pissed off with National and has declared he is now a center right independent blogger
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
mawm
I know for a fact that electorate committees are furious about the ETS, many have had long term members resign from the party because of it, many are equally furious with the arrogant and dismissive way Nick “the wanker” Smith has dealt with the ETS.
The National party power brokers do not give a shit, it seems that they and only they know what is good for the country.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Whale Oil was stupid/idealistic enough to believe that change could come from within the system. The system serves its own interests, not those it’s meant to serve/represent, and that’s much the same of every system that’s able to entrench itself and perpetuate.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Oh big fucking deal that’s really made a big difference to the rising bile of contempt I am starting to experience about this shower as they ream us all into bankruptcy. Well done the young Nats – now if you can bring your powers of logical argument to getting the price of fucking milk and petrol down to the level it was just three weeks ago, we’ll all be cock-a-hoop.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 2:46 am
“…party conference basically said that raising the purchase age was the wrong response to the right problem. “
- well said David. Your posts on this issue have been on song. We have a problem, but the solution is indeed more complex than simply raising the purchasing age.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:52 am
The delegates can vote for any minimum age they want, BUT it will be National’s politburo which will decide the issue.
Make no mistake, the spineless National Party is run by Key and his blind followers / acolytes with little regard for public opinion, except when comes to photo opportunities for waving and grinning.
I finish by quoting Whale Oil, who appears to have seen the light:
Vote:“After a day of insults, threats, opprobrium and malice, and after a vote which saw dullness, mediocrity and sloth rewarded, the National Party can no longer enjoy my full support. I will not tolerate meddling from political staffers in my private arrangements, I will not bow to threats of banning from the party, and I will not tolerate the subjugation of truth and honesty in the interests of expediency.”
July 18th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Manolo at 7.52
Vote:The bad news for New Zealand democracy is that you are 100% correct.
This is becoming quite sad.
The Party lead by Sir George Chapman is a distant memory.
July 18th, 2010 at 8:45 am
If all of you had heard the item on national radio this am re the costs of alcohol in the UK caused not by accidents etc, but by underlying health problems (sclerosis of the liver in 20 year olds and so on) and you thought ‘Im paying for that in my taxes’, then you might have s different attitude to the buying and consumption of alcohol
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Of course the young Nats would speak up for keeping the age as it is – it affects them, or, if not them then their friends or siblings. It has nothing at all to do with the common good of the country; it’s a certain segment applying pressure to make sure they can keep doing what they want to. Meanwhile, younger people will keep binge drinking. “Enforce the law more effectively” doesn’t mean squat.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Yay, youth drinking problem solved.
Vote:Just like child violence was with S59 repeal.
Bless our bleesed leaders, they are so wise.