So when will Labour and Greens vote to repeal anti-smacking law?
March 7th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarStuff reports:
Prime Minister John Key is shrugging off plans for a referendum on the government’s controversial asset sales plan, saying the issue has already been debated on the campaign trail.
Labour, the Greens and NZ First are expected to join forces with groups led by Grey Power in launching a petition this week calling for a Citizens Initiated Referendum on partial asset sales.
Labour and Greens presumably think the results of the any referendum should trump the results of the election and that National should ditch the policy it got elected on, in favour of the referendum result.
Now that is a valid view (not one I agree with though), but if that is their view then why have they not announced that they will be implementing the results of the anti-smacking referendum which voted 87% for a smack as part of good parental correction not to be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Perhaps someone in the media could ask them how they can advocate a referendum on asset sales, yet they ignore the last referendum result we had?
Asked about the plans for a referendum today, Mr Key said: “We’ve had that, it was called an election.”
He said National had openly campaigned on the issue and won the election decisively.
“It was a one year election campaign strategy we ran….it was the sole focus of the election campaign, Labour spent all of their advertising dollars opposed to it and we debated it in every single public forum we had. And National’s [vote] went up in office. It is only the third time a government in 123 years has done that.
This wasn’t some minor obscure policy. As the PM says, Labour focused almost every advertisement on it. It was an issue in every leader’s debate, and I suspect at every MTC meeting held up and down New Zealand.
Related posts:
- According to Labour the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales
- Winston says he will force Labour to repeal anti-smacking law
- Greens are using taxpayer funds for CIR petition
- Greens trying to buy a referendum
March 7th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Yes of course the call for a referendum is stupid, most especially since this was a major election issue just a few months ago. Perhaps the opponents to the mixed ownership model should be challenged to come up with other ways of saving $7 billion. That can’t be done by just chipping away at the edges; major cuts in our biggest spending sectors like welfare, health and education would be necessary. Would Grey Power like to have a 50% cut in their superannuation? And halve all other welfare benefits too? Abolish all elective surgery at public hospitals? Double class sizes?
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Phooey. An expert on last year elections (he was in two) should know:
National didn’t have a plan or any policies, they fudged their way through the election. Just like Peter Dunne completely changed his mind about asset sales. And Labour thought they could win.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
David, David, how many times do you need it explained to you: the “left” always believes in “participatory democracy” except when it disagrees with them. In those cases it is wrong, the people are deluded, and no account should be paid to it.
When it agrees with them, then of course it is merely confirmation that they were, as usual, right all along.
Clear now ?
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Key and National also ignored the 87%.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
“why have they not announced that they will be implementing the results of the anti-smacking referendum which voted 87% for a smack as part of good parental correction not to be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
because assault impacts on human rights (and is agreed to generally not to be dictated by majoritarian opinion), while management of assets is a collective ownership issue. Major consititutional decisions in a company require a shareholder vote, for instance. is this so hard to understand?
i am aware the distinction can be used (and abused) as a blank cheque for how Govts decide things, but it makes sense in this context – particularly so when asset sales are not easily reversed.
[DPF: Of course they are easily reversed. Simple. The Govt just buys up the shares they don't have, if they think they should. No law change even needed.
Curiously Labour never purchased the proportion of Air NZ they didn't own]
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Maybe its time for John Key to mutter “You lost, we won, eat that!“
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
i was surprised Hoskings didnt bring it up this morning with king and joyce.
rouppe – i was hoping joyce would remind king of that this morning.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
When does it end? So the way Labour and the Greens (and all the other pillacks jumping on this) want elections run now is that a government can be elected but cannot implement any policies that the majority of NZ doesn’t agree with. Maybe we should just vote on every single issue just in case the public don’t like it. Bugger me why don’t we just rename the country to New Greece? The scary thing is these fuckwits could win the next election.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
To quote Michael Cullen “We won, you lost” go f… yourself.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
bij is another person who can’t distingush assault from a light smack. I blame the education system. Back in my day (and DPF’s!) assault was what I got in unreffed rugby at lunchtime. A smack (cane) what what I got for demonstrating, rather well I thought, how robot-like our chemistry teacher was.
Back on topic, I can understand our liberal MSM not asking this question. A bit too inconvenient.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Drawing an uncharacteristically long bow there DPF.
Somehow, I doubt you would have much time for people making presumptions about what John Key thinks, based on what some other (third party) people say they *expect* the National Party will do?
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
I agree that going on about referendums is often just sore-loser talk. The focus should be on the merits of the argument.
However, having said that the smacking referendum was a bit of a farce by employing a loaded question.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
why have they not announced that they will be implementing the results of the anti-smacking referendum
Because as they are not the government, they can’t implement govt policy – and the referendum is not binding??
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
krazykiwi (7,465) Says:
March 7th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
bij is another person who can’t distingush assault from a light smack.
If I gave you a light smack you would not consider it assault?
Actually I should probably be using the correct terms here. Battery is physical contact, assault is to fear violence. A light smack wouldn’t make you fear violence, you might even laugh at me. But a light smack is designed to make a child fear violence in order to get them to comform to some desired standard of behaviour. So it is quite legitimate to refer to the “light smack” as assault otherwise the whole concept makes no sense since if children do not fear such physical contact then the punishment serves no purpose.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
@DPF: “Of course they are easily reversed. Simple. The Govt just buys up the shares they don’t have, if they think they should. No law change even needed.”
So how did buying back TranzRail work out? was it the sell off, or the buy back, which was badly executed? Treasury and various consultants were involved in both stages.
For what it is worth, i am ideologically in favour of selling down most of the Crown asset portfolio, for performance and transparency reasons – all other justifications are rubbish as far as i have considered them. Unfortunately the political risk and the choice of timing generates substantial economic risks for taxpayers – which the opposition is justified in appealing to majoritarian support.
care to address the substance of my point? i.e. that assault of children and governance of collective assets are different decisions with different affected parties? long bow indeed… and i am not interested in the usual semantics about what assault is and was “back when i was a boy”.
(aside: these rubbish-redneck-kiwiblog-comment-section-sewer-spasms about s59 remind me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo enjoy!)
[DPF: Tranzrail was sold 100%. These SOEs are not. Hence the shares will be available on NZX, as it can't be sold 1005 to a private owner]
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
@Weihana +1
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
bij
I think issue is simple. It is about referenda and if the results should be accepted by the Govt of tha day. ( the subject of the referendum is irrelevant to David’s point) If the Greens and Labour want a referendum and have it accepted they should then say they got it wrong on the anti smaking referendum. They cannot have it both ways. it is very simple.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Our peition/referendum system is fatally flawed – not just becasue they are non-binding, but because of the timeframe.
And it doesn’t help that stupid questions are used. Apparently:
Yeah, surprise, CTU.
And that question wouldn’t provide a definitive answer. It would not show how much opposition there is, because that would include the don’t cares and soft maybes etc etc – probably deliberately, but it would make a farce of it.
Further – that’s a very stupid petition question – do you sign it or not?
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
i never said that any referenda should be binding… and i am yet to see oppostion parties claim any asset sale referendum should be binding.
I had assumed a referendum was only being advanced to indicate the persuasiveness of the Govt’s claim that voters support this policy (and another chance to campaign and muddy the waters of rational debate of course) – but correct me if i am wrong.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
“It was a one year election campaign strategy we ran….it was the sole focus of the election campaign, Labour spent all of their advertising dollars opposed to it and we debated it in every single public forum we had.
There was no debate – a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward – there were only dopey bumper sticker slogans bandied about.
No Green, New Zealand First, Mana or Maori Party, nor Labour Party asked National
• How exactly will you sell 49% of an SOE
• Will the SOE have to become something else to operate.
• Will all share-holders– state and private- receive the same dividends
and that National had not a clue how they would do it themselves is evident in that they hadn’t considered section 9 regarding the Treaty – nor had any of the fucking megaminds of those opposed considered that either [including myself]
To say that National was voted into Government again soley as a mandate comfirning approval of asset sales is as dopey as denying the teacup tape and its aftermath had nothing to do with Winston’s return.
How long does a referendum take to enact
Doesn’t the Government have to approve it being held
as well as having the right to ignore it once it is held ?
The Opposition should still just hammer questions on how the sale will operate.
If 51% of share holders have to abide by a Treaty clause how does a minority holding operate in any way that differs from that over-ruling 51% [isn't that why it is 51/49%, or is there something there that is very clever and we are not yet informed about]?
And
Why are assets sales so fucking important to the Government when the debt they would allay is a piss-poor $6 billion but the total debt has increased from $6 billion in 2008 to $50 billion at the end of 2011, and is forecast to grow by another $25 billion to $75 billion at its peak in 5 years’ time •
So the partial sale of SOEs [and water rights and all attached] at $ 6 billion is 12% of $ 50 billion total debt or 8.57% of $ 75 billion.
The bigger similarity between a referendum on partial SOE sales and that on smacking is that they both allow politicians to say they are doing something while in fact doing nothing.
The Opposition needs to work a little harder at how the sales won’t work and why it is so fucking important that National thinks they should, to expose it for the stupidity that it is.
• Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Net Government debt has increased from $6 billion in 2008 to $50 billion at the end of 2011, and is forecast to grow by another $25 billion to $75 billion at its peak in 5 years’ time. The Government is confident that its plans to stop debt rising and start reducing it will mean that Government net debt will peak at $75 billion and start falling.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/4/4/e/50HansQ_20120228_00000001-1-Government-Financial-Position-Government.htm
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
bij – trying reading through on The Standard or Dim-Post and see what claims are being made. Like:
- the election wasn’t a mandate so National can’t do it.
- opinion polls say National can’t do it
- Peter Dunne can’t can’t change his mind and let National do it
- Peter Dunne must stop National doing it by changing his mind
- a referendum will stop National from doing it
I’ve had multiple ‘discussions’ on all those points.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
@PG, as soon as you start referring to the Standard or any other comment section anywhere, i switch off. i did not get a choice to vote for the providers of those comments, so their opinions do not represent party policies. yet again, you add nothing to another comment section.
Or am i to assume all your comments reflect United Flaccid policies?
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I support the concept of the partial asset sales but there has to be a question mark over timing given the current state of the markets and the current performance of the companies.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Weihana – The terms assault and light smack were used by bij in the context of day-to-day meaning. If you want to use common law definition, then cessation of privileges, time-out or yelling could be arguably considered assault. At least 87% of kiwi’s understand what a light smack is. And they understand how it differs from different from assault.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
There is a much more urgent problem to take care of before worrying about smacking.
Vote:I assume that the Greens and Labour will immediately demand that the size of Parliament be reduced from 121 to 99.
After all in 1999 81.5% of the people voting approved this cut, and I’m sure all our little lefties will confess they gor it wrong then and want to rectify the matter.
In fact I’m sure that the excess MPs in those parties will resign immediately. If they are all, as they must be, list members and no other people on the party list accept their places they don’t need to be replaced. This would save us some money as well as it would get rid of Mojo and we wouldn’t have to finance another Green party staffer to prepare her reading matter.
March 7th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
These lefty scum give me the shits. I would assume they want this referendum to be binding, hay I’m all that. In Fact I wish the pricks would push for a law making all referendum binding. That way when they useless sacks of shit get to govern again we can shaft them to our hearts delight with binding referendum but of course the slimy arseholes would change the law again to suit themselves.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
It is now time to leave NZ.
Labour, the Grrens and Winston First have revealed their true anit democratic nature.
Maori Party, per Sharples think the treaty should apply to all individuals.
National Radio parrots anything the GReens especially put out and actively misinform listeners.
The papers are a disgrace.
This country is just pathetic, racist and full of fanatical luddites who oppose evrything unless it related to sport.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
bij, I suggest when you claim to switch off then don’t proceed to take cheap irrelevant shots. You could consider what your own little moan added to this comment section.
You say “I am yet to see oppostion parties claim” but also “i switch off” and “their opinions do not represent party policies” – if you switch off how the hell would you know?
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Revealed their true anti-democratic nature by calling for a referendum?
You’ve got it all wrong – when the government does what the citizens want, that’s called democracy…
Now that, I can’t argue with!
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
RRM
You are wrong, governments are elected to govern, not to pander to the wishes of the mob. Democracy does not mean just responding to focus groups nor to what ciizens want, after all on that basis much so called socila reform would never have happened.
Labour, Greens and Winston First only want a referendum on this issue. Issue politics is the death of democracy, look at the US where despite the seperation of church and state increasingly fanatical religious nuts drive the politics.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Yes you can sense Winston behind the Grey Power “initiative” can’t you.
Of course he’ll paint it as spontaneous upwelling of outrage he had nothing to do but simply reflects on their behalf as their valiant defender as he travels up and down the country selling this in the small town meetings his travel funded by we taxpayers which coincidentally happens also to increase his base support just as it would were he actually electioneering.
If the Nats have any sense, which they don’t, they would immediately, tonight, issue a press release pointing out DPF’s juxtaposition and volunteer nay insist they appear on every single media show which discusses this referenda and simply repeat that message, time after time after time until even the thickest pro-referenderer finally got the left’s total hypocrisy on this through their profoundly thick skull and the whole thing died through lack of interest.
Unfortunately what will probably, nay almost certainly happen, is the Nats will say nothing at all except “the election was the referenda” and then stand damaged after six or so months of non-stop standing outside the supermarkets when finally the necessary number of signatures is gathered and the whole thing is triggered. Then they’re in an impossible position since they can hardly sell the bloody things while a referenda like that is waiting to be held, can they.
Sad isn’t it that the Nats are the only available conservatives in this little country for they are so profoundly inept they really don’t deserve to be running anything at all, let alone the nation. I hope they prove me wrong, but I don’t think they will.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
I remember in 2005 Don Brash said the government had no right to pass the Civil Unions Act without a referendum on the issue.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Why would they? It is UN policy and we are a UN state..simple really.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
…because it gives them a soapbox excuse. When pressed some have admitted its just playing politics (on forums I won’t name in case bij shows a superiority simplex again). Most know it will take too long and is unbinding so will be ignored – if there is eventually a referendum it might be after the first one or two assets are already sold. Some cling desperately to any bit of hope that they can still defeat National.
One of the two leaders of the opposition Russell Norman admitted yesterday that the referendum was unlikely to change anything, yet they still push it to try and extend the election campaign for another year or so.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Key could but he won’t. He did get the overall vote and it does seem that most people who voted for the Nats, did also not agree about the sales. No mystery about that. We do have to make compromises when we vote.
Vote:Key could listen to that groundswell of opinion, even if he won the election. He could but won’t. In my view — tragic.
My personal view is there is no need to the government to own these things forever. I would prefer them sold. However if sold the law simply could be that New Zealand citizens (individual persons) can be the only people who can own shares.
Any referendum needs to be precise. The proposed wording is wonky. “do you agree with the government…….etc.”
I think – sell them. (agree with Govt) And think also . Only to New Zealanders. (don’t agree with government)
That idiot Helen Kelly from the unions won’t get my vote – as her referendum wording is unclear.
March 7th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Helen is great..she is the heroine of the downtrodden and every day there are more downtrodden people. She has the oldies on her side..Who does Key really have? ..a few wealthy people..He has recently lost the farmers thru telling lies. His support base is crumbling.
Vote:March 7th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
I’m not sure why anyone would object to people endeavouring to get up a referendum on this, or any other issue. They are a useful mechanism to provide democratic feedback on a specific issue. A government can ignore the result: that’s a political calculation to make.
Vote:A referendum may put some pressure on the government. It seems the asset sale programme is becoming a bit more problematic day by day.
March 7th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
@PG i mean i switch off on you. all you do is add to the echo chamber – nothing of substance, no matter what comment section you are on. if i can get you to reflect on that, i’d say i have contributed. seriously, wtf have the standard or dim post got to do with this? telling us what other echo chambers conclude just adds more heat than light. if there were automatically binding referenda in NZ, you would cripple the nation trying to inform us poor vulnerable voters with your link-whoring and bob-each-way bullshit. suggest you stick to the volunteer work and STFU.
jesus, i’ve wasted enough time considering your thoughts.
i will ask again, have any of the opposition parties said they want this potential referendum to be binding but not others? it is a serious question which, if answered “no”, slightly exposes DPF to another accusation of over-reach. as i said, i’m happy to be corrected, and i disagree with Labour’s anti-asset sale argument.
i tend to think Mikenmild has it about right in terms of what Labour and the Greens are really saying. nice try stirring the s59 pot though, DPF. trying to distract much?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 7:39 am
Yvette
“There was no debate”
What planet are you on? Do you mean to say that all of the time Phil Goff and senior Labour front benchers spent over not just the campaign but may months leading up to it was just hot air. The issue of asset sales was front and centre in all the debates that Key and Goff participated in. Various media like Radio NZ and the major newspapers devoted considerable time and column inches to this topic. Labour’s entire campaign was wrapped around opposition to the asset sales – its all they talked about.
“To say that National was voted into Government again soley as a mandate comfirning approval of asset sales is as dopey as denying the teacup tape and its aftermath had nothing to do with Winston’s return.”
I can’t think of a single issue that has so totally dominated an election in recent New Zealand political history. NZ’s Parliamentary system of government works like this. Party A wants to implement Policy B so in order to garner a mandate for Policy B, Party A presents itself to the voters and tells the voters what they will do if they win the election. National made the partial sale of assets a key part of its re-election campaign. Unlike Labour in the 1987 election when there was nary a murmur or hint of their massive sale of SOEs, National told voters what it planned to do if it was re-elected. It got re-elected and so it now will do what it told voters it will do. Very very simple.
The questions you ask further display your ignorance. Labour (with Winston Peters) presided over the partial sale of an SOE: Auckland Airport. The process the government will follow will mirror the process Labour used for that partial sell down. I don’t recall you coming on this blog objecting to that sale at the time. The process nonetheless was successful.
The section 9 issue is easily resolved and is merely Maori Party posturing to deliver some perceived gain in the process to their voters. You seem to forget that Maori Party opposition to the asset sales was unwavering throughout the election and was baked into the cake of the electorate making up its mind – National even enshrined MP opposition to the sales in their Confidence and Supply Agreement and National went back into government knowing that it had the numbers to pass the asset sell down legislation WITHOUT the Maori Party.
Your questions about the reasons for the sell down re debt repayment tell us you weren’t listening during the campaign. Phil Goff lost the Christchurch Leaders debate on this issue – Labour’s figures didn’t stack up. Their spending plans were not covered by the new taxes they planned to raise and it took weeks for Cunliffe to finally decide how much EXTRA borrowing Labour’s economic package would really need.
Watch Parliamentary Question time on any given day Yvette – Labour and the Greens are asking all the questions you say they should and John Key is giving them the same answers he gave the voters who re-elected him. If NZers were so opposed to the asset sales then they should’ve elected Phil Goff Prime Minister. I wonder why they didn’t.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 8:05 am
bij – extended snarkiness doesn’t add much, does it. Trying to tell people to STFU here doesn’t usually work very well. You could at least try some original attack lines.
And you’re wrong, I haven’t suggested binding referenda, you’d know that if you had any idea about what I’m promoting.
That’s distracting from what’s actually happening.
Labour, Greens, NZ First and Mana are all trying to use ‘lack of mandate’, polls and the proposed petition/referendum to try and build public opinion to pressure National into dropping their asset sales, and to build their poll support. They’re playing politics.
The parties themselves know ‘binding’ is out of the equation. They know the timeframe for a referendum is far too long to stop National’s asset programme from proceeding. They are positioning for the next election.
Parliamentary support for the ‘anti-smacking’ legislation against apparent public opinion (hard to tell with a nonsense referendum question) is a valid comparison regarding the current oppositiion campaign.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 8:51 am
@PG i respectfully disagree. i think u just proved my and mikenmild’s point about dpf being full of hot air. of course it is politics, but unlike smacking, numbers should & could affect the decision.
Btw, u spend so much time on teh interwebs that no amount of ‘snark’ sent your way is original. have a good one mate
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 9:18 am
but unlike smacking, numbers should & could affect the decision
They always do. In this case could be 61, could be 64, regardless of devout+soft polling in the sixties.
But why unlike smacking? Because it’s inconvenient for your argument? Most of parliament disregarded the anti smacking law referendum and polls in the eighties, so why should they bother about polls or petitions on this?
The number that really counts adds up to 121.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Remember a motion to read a bill only carries if there is a majority aye vote (61 ayes) – if the vote ties, then the motion lapses. So the balance of power may not in Peter Dunne’s hands, but in the hands of two people.
The first is Speaker Lockwood Smith. A misbehaving National MP can be Named and lose their voting rights for 24 hours, and if the MOM Bill is about to go through a reading – 60 ayes and 60 noes means the bill fails the reading and dies.
The second is Death. According to statistics, he has won every by-election he’s contended.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 11:19 am
The whole thing regarding the opposition present fiasco is not to halt any sales but over the next two and a half years to devalue the present government by whatever opposition means.
Vote:They do not necessraily agree with what they are trying to do but oppose everything and anything.
The so called media will support this devaluation.
They are litigating the next 2014 election and it will not stop until they have humiliated Key by whatever means.
The media motto is “REMEMBER AMBROSE _ ONE OF US REAL PEOPLE”.
March 8th, 2012 at 11:22 am
@ PG as i explained… Freedom from assault should be a human right, beyond the outcome of participatory democracy (and ideally beyond representative democracy). you are welcome to disagree, as many dinosaurs and legal dilettantes did at the time.
i am aware this is a ‘natural rights’ argument and open to abuse, but i think it makes my distinction between the two refernda (and Sue Bradford’s s59 argument at the time) valid. the majority’s out-dated views about parenting should not justify retaining an absurd defence that negated the rights of individuals who are not represented in Parliament.
i’d also note that the referendum on ‘smacking’ did not even come close to addressing the question that parliamentarians were considering. you bought dpf’s distraction hook line and sinker!
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 11:37 am
bij,
“Freedom from assault should be a human right”
The problem (well ONE of them anyway) with this argument is that giving a child a smack is “aasualt” only in the twisted minds of urban latte liberals.
“the majority’s out-dated views about parenting”
It’s mere opinion (and a liberal one at that) that their views are “outdated”. But as there is no objective way to prove this, your elevetaing your opinion to a status it does not have in reality.
“not justify retaining an absurd defence that negated the rights of individuals who are not represented in Parliament.”
So, you agree that abortion should be banned then. After all, its assualt, and babies are not represented in Parliament, right?
I find it sadly ironic that liberals will rant on about “child abuse” and the “rights” of children and how giving a child a smack is so terribly terribly wrong, but a few threads ago those same liberals were arguing that we should seriously consider giving parents the right to murder their own children (post birth abortion) if they become inconveniant.
Moreover, those same liberals are the ones advocating abortion in general.
So, according to what passes for moral thinking amongst degenrate liberals, smacking a child is BAD, but killing a child is GOOD.
Hmmmm…..
I would like to ask liberals how they explain this absurd contradiction, but then I remind myself that liberalism is a disease that produces diseased minds incapable of doing anything except expelling meaningless shit and pseudo-intellectual drivel.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 11:44 am
foetus =/= baby. I’m not sure many rational people agreed with the ‘post-birth abortion’ study you mention. you use a broad brush to paint me, friend… but your last para explained all.
i am aware there are differences of opinion, but you miss my point. referenda are not usually justified in dtermining civil rights or liberties. are you saying that homosexuality being illegal was ‘justified’ in 1960, but somehow isn’t justified now?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 11:57 am
bij, you’re the one trying to distract here.
You can argue all you like about distinctions between different issues, but democratic process can’t swing on the whim of whoever wants things their own way. Referenda need to be either binding or not binding, and not be dependent on who lost the last election but wants to keep campaigning.
Maybe you’re jumping to incorrect conclusions. Are you unaware that I have argued against smacking here for years?
I agree and have said many times the smacking question rendered that referendum a waste of time. And by the look of the proposed asset sale question it makes the petition absurd. How many would sign up for this?
Do you support the Government selling up to 49% of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air NZ?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
i don’t give a shit about your views Pete, and i don’t follow your blog comment career. i wasn’t calling you a dinosaur or legal dilettante, but you are welcome to self identify
the question sounds good to me, just replace the companies’ names with the term “SOEs”. they are all run as commercial corportate entities, and should be subject to the usual uncertain potential vagaries of competition law, price control and general regulation. A resounding “YES” from the rooftops!
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
# krazykiwi (7,470) Says:
March 7th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Weihana – The terms assault and light smack were used by bij in the context of day-to-day meaning. If you want to use common law definition, then cessation of privileges, time-out or yelling could be arguably considered assault. At least 87% of kiwi’s understand what a light smack is. And they understand how it differs from different from assault.
Section 59 permits the use of force for preventing children from engaging in disruptive or offensive behaviour, preventing harm to the child, preventing the child from engaging in a criminal act, and for performing the normal daily tasks incidental to good care and parenting. As such removing privileges and enforcing time-out are not an assault.
Yes we all understand what a “light smack” is and as I said its purpose is to make the child fear physical contact. You can choose not to regard it as violence if you must, but if the smack isn’t violent then the child would not fear it and, if the child does not fear it, it serves no purpose. The so-called “light smack” is a convenient fiction for if it is so light as to produce no pain then it also produces no disincentive.
The smack is a traditionally sanctioned form of violence inflicted upon children as a means of enforcing discipline. It is the traditional nature of the smack which forms the basis of its social acceptability and little more. If one were to hold a child down and “lightly” prick them with a needle most people would consider that quite disturbing even though the level of physical pain is comparable to a smack (if not less) and no lasting damage will result. The reason it isn’t accepted is because it isn’t traditional. So considering the smacking form of violence as acceptable whilst considering the needle pricking form of violence as disturbed is arbitrary.
There are many forms of violence comparable, by any objective measure, to a smack. We could have the “light” slap to the face or the “light” hair pulling, or the “light” punch to the guts. Obviously not acceptable, yet somehow when it comes to hand on buttocks it’s acceptable. Strange too since the buttocks are somewhat of a natural cushion so more force is required to induce pain.
For me it is the intention to inflict physical pain which defines an act as violent and so labelling the smack as “light” does not change the situation since physical pain is required in order for the act to serve any purpose.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
i don’t give a shit about your views Pete
Funny. Most people who don’t give a shit about my views ignore me in the first place and certainly don’t keep responding and responding. Bob each way bij?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Lee01,
It’s mere opinion (and a liberal one at that) that their views are “outdated”. But as there is no objective way to prove this, your elevetaing your opinion to a status it does not have in reality.
It is not just mere opinion. There are plenty of studies which indicate increased dangers from using corporal punishment on children and this is why child welfare agencies and child health professionals generally oppose its use.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9265876
Vote:http://www.jpedhc.org/article/S0891-5245%2802%2988318-3/abstract
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/128/4/539/
March 8th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
A key thing regarding corporal punishment of children is that it’s unneccesary, non physical discipline is more effective if done properly. And no risk of escalation under pressure (which can even happen with good well meaning parents).
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Weihana,
“Yes we all understand what a “light smack” is”
Clearly not.
“and as I said its purpose is to make the child fear physical contact.”
Bizzare interpretation, and utterly wrong. The purpose is to correct a child engaged in serious wrong, self-harm or harm to others.
“It is the traditional nature of the smack which forms the basis of its social acceptability and little more.”
Tradition is a far more reliable guide than the opinions of liberals.
“For me it is the intention to inflict physical pain which defines an act as violent and so labelling the smack as “light” does not change the situation since physical pain is required in order for the act to serve any purpose.”
Physical pain is one of the normal ways we learn. If I stick my hand on a stove element, the pain will tell me not to do so again.
bij,
“i am aware there are differences of opinion, but you miss my point. referenda are not usually justified in dtermining civil rights or liberties”
Of course they are. An election is a referendum, and in a democracy what constitutes “civil rights and liberties” is determined by the party in power.
Now this is not necessarily a good thing. True right and wrong are not determined by the majority. But you cannot argue for democracy and then claim that your personal opinion as to what constitutes civil rights and liberties should be above any democratic accountability. That is rank hypocrisy. A good example of liberals trying to have it both ways.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Weihana,
“It is not just mere opinion. There are plenty of studies which indicate increased dangers from using corporal punishment on children and this is why child welfare agencies and child health professionals generally oppose its use.”
These “studies” are carried out by liberals using liberal philosphical foundations. So yes, they are mere opinions. Cloaking liberal opinion in the guise of academia ignores the fact that the academic world is dominated by liberals.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I agree, apart from the label generalising.
But here you’re doing the same thing, discounting studies that don’t fit your argument. You could say everything is ‘mere opinions’, even religious claims.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“But here you’re doing the same thing, discounting studies that don’t fit your argument.”
I’m not discounting them because they do not fit my argument, I am discounting them because they are carried out and written by liberals. That makes them wrong from the start.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Ah yes Lee, those bloody liberals who claimed the earth was round.
You’re worse than bij, discounting anything from anyone you label ‘liberal’.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
“Ah yes Lee, those bloody liberals who claimed the earth was round.”
Not really. There was never any claim that the earth was flat in the first place. The “we used to belive the earth was flat” idea is a myth created by a 19th century liberal.
“You’re worse than bij, discounting anything from anyone you label ‘liberal’.”
Worse? No. Wiser? Yes. And I’m not simply labeling them. It is in fact what they are.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
@PG happy to oblige. Conversation is fun, whether we agree or care about the merits of the counter-party’s honestly held opinion or not. Doesn’t mean i am going to ignore you. You told me you didn’t object to Sue Bradford’s proposals, i said i didn’t care, as it didn’t affect my argument. Don’t take it too seriously bro.
just to clarify: do you think everything can or should be (theroetically or ethically) determined by majority decisions?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Part of the problem in this is the very nature of democracy itself. It is an inherently contradictory political system, trying, without much success, to reconcile individual freedom with rule by the State. But inevitably one must win and one must lose. Hence the never-ending social conflict.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
@PG btw, thanks for comparing me to Lee01, really nice of you . i am not discounting people’s opinions because they do not accord with my own, i am saying that in some cases, everyone’s opinion is equally irrelevant. Are you familiar with civil liberties and constitutional legal doctrines at all?
Yes, i am aware this quickly becomes a tautology, since i am asserting this and it sounds like my opinion. This is the danger of natural law arguments. It remains, however, a valid distinction for how society goes about determining rules. as soon as universally agreed basic human rights are at issue, principle should overwhelm opinion and politics. this is possibly, deep down, why we agree about s59.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Traditionalists would always argue that the act of violence is justified within their framework of thinking, do what I tell you or you will get a slap.
Vote:Thankfully some of us a more self aware than that.
March 8th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
@Lee01, i agree with you there!
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“as soon as universally agreed basic human rights are at issue, principle should overwhelm opinion and politics”
Whose opinion as to what constitutes “principle”? Whose opinion as to what are “universal human rights”?
Your still trying to have it both ways. You want your personal opinion as to what are human rights to be imposed by force on others and above any democratic accountability, and at the same time still claim to support democracy.
You cannot have it both ways.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
KevinH
“Traditionalists would always argue that the act of violence is justified within their framework of thinking, do what I tell you or you will get a slap.
Thankfully some of us a more self aware than that.”
Or self-deluded.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
@Lee01
Vote:Talking about yourself obviously
March 8th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
@Lee01 i can and i will. Look around at liberal democracy and how it is changing. The dinosaurs will become extinct. Your’s is an empty ideology, based on ‘might is right’ and power in numbers. i agree it is my opinion, and i am appealing to higher authority than democracy – ethics.
i respect your opinion and ability to scoff. i am not that self-deluded! i only claim that in the long run, your anti-liberal perspective will be the minority opinion.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
just to clarify: do you think everything can or should be (theroetically or ethically) determined by majority decisions?
On a countrywide scale no, far too slow and cumbersome, and too prone to lack of expertise and lack of information and to much misinformation to rely on.
I think we are not far from having the best balance of democracy based on majority (sort of) based elections, representative democracy MPs and democracy based on majority parliament. There are always going to be potential drawbacks, like whipping (ok if not overused) and manipulation of electorates and lists.
We can tweak the structure of that (eg through the MMP review) but ultimately it comes down to how it’s used (and abused) by parties, voters and media.
The bestb improvements wil come from improving the quality of MPs (and therefore parties), and engaging more voters through better communication both ways. Indicative polls are referenda can be useful in conjunction with discussions and debates.
Any system has potential flaws – mostly human flaws.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
@PG ffs mate, what part of “theoretically or ethically” can’t you understand?! completely missed the question, didn’t you?
i was asking “does might = right?” not “is it technically feasible?”
and you wonder why people give you snark!
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
bij,
“i can and i will.”
Well, at least your honest about your hypocrisy.
“Look around at liberal democracy and how it is changing.”
I don’t see that it is to any great degree. And the philosophical foundations remain the same.
“The dinosaurs will become extinct.”
Define “dinosaurs” for me. And then show me the evidence for their extinction.
“Your’s is an empty ideology”
I seriously doubt you know what my “ideology” actually is.
“based on might is right”
No, thats what I’m accusing you of. Your ideology is that your subjective opinion of human rights should be forced on others by the power of the State. That IS “might is right”.
I am actually arguing for the opposite.
” i agree it is my opinion, and i am appealing to higher authority than democracy – ethics.”
Whose “ethics”? You want democracy, but you want your personal opinions on ethics to be beyond democratic accountabilty.
There is a word for that. Arrogance.
And for the record, I am not actually arguing for democracy. I think democracy is an appaling system of thinly disguised oppression, and little more than one of the many bastard children of liberalism.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
@Lee01, i suspect we agree about quite a lot, and all your points are fair. i would prefer a libertarian anarchy, but it ain’t gonna happen. better to sitck to a few basic human rights (freedom from assault for instance) and get the state out of our lives.
by “ideology” i meant your obvious anti-liberal anti-human rights comments. i don’t want my opinions to be beyond deomocracy, i want universally agreed human rights to be. i accept that we disagree about what those are exactly. sheesh, some people in Europe and even NZ think that access to broadband is one. Hence i concede ‘rights-based’ rules can go too far and lead to the type of uneasiness you describe.
forming the UN after observing the holocaust might have been ‘a bit arrogant’ but it was worth it. there are still neo-nazis around, but this doesn’t make the UN Declaration any less valid.
my point, before you guys seized on different tangents and implications, is that with s59, Parliament (including the Nats) took a ‘rights-based’ approach. selling assets is more of a shareholder-governance (principal-agent) decision, and therefore more amenable to majoritarian decision-making. dpf’s analogy was bullshit.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
‘Theoretically’ is a waste of time – of course many things are theoretically possible including fair capitalism and working communism. Theoretically we don’t need a government or any leadership structure because everyone works and shares together fairly. No point considering the impossible.
‘Ethically’ is subjective. I’m sure Lee has different ideas on ethics to ‘liberals’.
Finding how to improve on what is working in practice is a more useful approach.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Lee01,
These “studies” are carried out by liberals using liberal philosphical foundations. So yes, they are mere opinions. Cloaking liberal opinion in the guise of academia ignores the fact that the academic world is dominated by liberals.
I’m not discounting them because they do not fit my argument, I am discounting them because they are carried out and written by liberals. That makes them wrong from the start.
Argumentum ad hominem. Whether or not the authors of such studies are liberals, it does not have any relevance to whether or not their conclusions follow from the evidence. The philosophical foundations of such an academic study are scientific, not liberal.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
bij,
“i would prefer a libertarian anarchy, but it ain’t gonna happen.”
I would prefer a Traditionalist anarchy myself, but that said, liberatrian is close enough. I disagree that it will never happen. There is plenty of evidence that the modern State is in serious trouble.
“i want universally agreed human rights to be.”
But the problem what that is there will never, ever be universal agreeement about such things. There is not now, there never will be. Thats the basic flaw in your position.
The curren “universal” declaration of human rights was not “universal”. It was written behind closed doors, and there is not anywhere close to universal agreement about it.
So we get back to the fact that your advocating might=right. Your opinions on ethics and rights should be forced on the rest of us whether we like it or not. That contradicts your own basic world view, that we should live by rights. But by most definitions of such things, you want to violate mine.
“forming the UN after observing the holocaust might have been ‘a bit arrogant’ but it was worth it.”
Why? All we have is a global state telling us what to think and how to live. No thanks.
“there are still neo-nazis around, but this doesn’t make the UN Declaration any less valid.”
The UN Declaration is invalid because it is merely the subjective opinion of those who wrote it.
So we are back to your view that a super-elite of all-wise and all knowing liberals should force their opinions on us. And you seriously think that protects peoples rights? Really???
“is that with s59, Parliament (including the Nats) took a ‘rights-based’ approach. selling assets is more of a shareholder-governance (principal-agent) decision, and therefore more amenable to majoritarian decision-making. dpf’s analogy was bullshit.”
No its valid IN a democracy, because what constitutes a “rights based approach” is, again, mere opinion. Labour and the Greens, are rank hypocrites (and that the nicest thing I could say about such vile gutter scum), because they, and you, are arguing that your subjective opinions should be beyond democracy, while other things, in YOUR opinion are not.
Thats it. Your entire argument can be summed up thus: “I belive in democracy, except when it doesn’t suit me. I believe in universal rights, except when I violate the rights of others to enforce my opinions on them.”
Sorry, but your case is so filled with conveniant spin and self-serving hypocritical contradictions, as to be worthless.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Weihana,
“Whether or not the authors of such studies are liberals, it does not have any relevance to whether or not their conclusions follow from the evidence.”
Yes it does. “Evidence” is in the eye of the beholder. They pick and choose what suits their arguments, and ignore anything contrary to it. Thats how all academic studies are done.
And the fact that they ARE liberals, makes anything they say irrelevant to me. That may be Ad Hominem. So be it.
“The philosophical foundations of such an academic study are scientific, not liberal.”
No, they are liberal. Your just hiding behind the label of “science” because., like bij, your trying to disguise the fact that your opinions are purely subjective.
I actually live much of my life in the academic world. If you think that what comes out of the social science departments, or the medical, is pure objective science, then your a fool.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
selling assets is more of a shareholder-governance (principal-agent) decision, and therefore more amenable to majoritarian decision-making. dpf’s analogy was bullshit.
And I call bullshit on that. “More amenable to” your opinion.
Do you really think a campaign driven by Greys, unions, Labour, Greens, NZ First and Mana would be based on sufficient economic nous and business experience to lead to a well considered decision? They’ve all decided before they started campaigning, based on ideology. To them it’s simply a contest of popular opinion for political purposes.
Hardly a great example for the use of direct democracy.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
@Lee01 i respectfully disagree. have a great day!
i fear you are setting yourself up for a life of disappointment. every issue will have different merits, and i am not saying philosopher-kings should dictate everyday choice. as i said, on most matters, i am pretty anti intervention. but some things are beyond the pale. i appreciate that from what you say, there is no pale. nothing is forbidden, it is just force of law and majority opinions that dictate or limit individual freewill. you don’t leave much room for unpopular but nevertheless good ideas. are they possible?
@PG, you remain an idiot. the one point i admit that i care about your views and ask you whether you think the majority should be able to sanction murders, you dodge. weak bro, weak.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
@PG, anyone can buy shares and everyone already owns govt assets. are you saying their views are not relevant? shareholder councils have views, but interest groups are generally assumed to represent their members’ interests. is this somehow different?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Lee01,
“and as I said its purpose is to make the child fear physical contact.”
Bizzare interpretation, and utterly wrong. The purpose is to correct a child engaged in serious wrong, self-harm or harm to others.
Correct a child HOW? The point of smacking is to engender fear, fear of the pain that results when a parent smacks their child. While you pretend to be obtuse you acknowledge this fact in the very same post:
Physical pain is one of the normal ways we learn. If I stick my hand on a stove element, the pain will tell me not to do so again.
So clearly you understand my point that the point of smacking is to produce pain, with the intention that the child will modify their behaviour as a consequence.
While I agree that pain can be a method of learning, a stove element is not the equivalent of a parent and in any case we would expect that children would not have to put their hands on burning elements in order to learn that hot things shouldn’t be touched. The fact that children can learn from burning their hands doesn’t make it a legitimate method of teaching children.
The essential problem with parents assaulting their children is that it is correcting a child by teaching bad behaviour. For some reason some parents can’t see the incredible irony when they hit their child for hitting another child and this is where parents play a different role than a hot element. Parents are role models and also persons with which children have loving relationships. Not only does corporal punishment teach children that hitting is okay, so long as you are in charge, it also teaches them that it’s okay to hit people whom you care about. So while it may produce short term benefits, such as conformity to their parents demands, it’s not surprising that long term such children will have a higher (on average) propensity for violence and anger as a means to resolve conflict.
“It is the traditional nature of the smack which forms the basis of its social acceptability and little more.”
Tradition is a far more reliable guide than the opinions of liberals.
If that were truly the case we’d still be owning slaves and treating women like property.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Lee01,
That may be Ad Hominem. So be it.
It is ad hominem, there is no “may” about it. That you resile to accept what is clearly an illogical train of thought simply demonstrates what we have known all along: that you are unreasonable and closed minded.
I actually live much of my life in the academic world. If you think that what comes out of the social science departments, or the medical, is pure objective science, then your a fool.
“You’re” is short for “You are” not “Your”.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Lee01,
…what constitutes a “rights based approach” is, again, mere opinion.
Not necessarily. A “rights based approach”, in my view, constitutes an appeal to reason. If we accept that there exists an independent objective reality, then it follows that the means to achieve goals in that reality constitutes a set of objective truths which are not just “mere opinion”. Therefore by finding people who share similar goals, a “rights based” argument is a way to reason with such people to achieve agreement to uphold those rights as fundamental.
Freedom of speech for instance. No intrinsic property of the universe dictates that we must have freedom of speech. Rather it is for the wise to realize the value of such a freedom, to convey that wisdom to others, and to seek to have that freedom enshrined in the mores of society to guard against transient public ignorance.
On the other hand, most people would accept that having a positive and healthy upbringing is a basic value that can be agreed upon as a worthy goal. Therefore if the educated among us are able to determine objectively that certain methods of child rearing are not positive and not healthy then that to me constitutes a rights based argument. The idea being that the 87% (in reality probably lower) is ignorant and should be corrected by the force of superior knowledge. We should not hold their view valid merely by force of numbers.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
@Weihana I am glad someone understood what i was grasping at!
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
ask you whether you think the majority should be able to sanction murders
You said nothing about the majority sanctioning murders. Smacking and selling less than a half of a small proportion of assets are quite different, but I won’t call you an idiot, most people here judge for themselves.
anyone can buy shares and everyone already owns govt assets. are you saying their views are not relevant?
Not at all, the issue is how relevant to the governmental decision making process.
In the election campain one of the major parties had an asset sale policy as their key policy and the other major party was against it. The for party won the election with an increased %, the other party reduced their vote.
There is no established political practice for the losing party to now in effect try and win the election via a referendum. If you want that to be possible I suggest making a submission to the MMP review.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Congratulations. That takes the prize for the most elitist and arrogant comment i’ve read here at KB.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
@PG i said “do you think everything can or should be (theroetically or ethically) determined by majority decisions?”
well done for noticing smacking is not the same as asset sales. i assume you also think murder is not the same as asset sales. i will accept your ‘withdrawal and apology’ when it is offered. you proved my point.
sorry, your opinion reinforces mine (to anticipate Lee01).
as for the rest of your comment, echo-chamber pete, echo-chamber… i understand public law, you patronising old git. no one is trying to win an election via a referendum. they are trying to get the board to act according to the wishes of shareholders. are you even capable of having an intellectual conversation without changing the terms at each step?
here’s another one: do you think everyone who voted for National was in favour of these asset sales *all other things equal*?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
# krazykiwi (7,475) Says:
March 8th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Therefore if the educated among us are able to determine objectively that certain methods of child rearing are not positive and not healthy then that to me constitutes a rights based argument. The idea being that the 87% (in reality probably lower) is ignorant and should be corrected by the force of superior knowledge. We should not hold their view valid merely by force of numbers
Congratulations. That takes the prize for the most elitist and arrogant comment i’ve read here at KB.
But is it wrong?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Pull your head in bij, I never said assets sales were the same as smacking. What I did say was that just because they are different doesn’t mean you can change the entire way our democracy works.
Labour didn’t campaign on jacking up a referendum if they lost the election – where’s their mandatte for that? Greens? NZ First (Greys)?
Stupid question. I can’t read 1,058,636 people’s minds.
Do you think many people who didn’t vote for National care much about asset sales?
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Weihana – given the nausiating elitism in your comment I’m surpprised you’ve lowered yourself to ask a question of me.
Seriously.
Go back and read it again.
Then ask a neighbour to read it. Then someone at the bus stop.
Get their views.
My answer: Elitist, arrogant and very, very wrong. It’s a comment for the kiwiblog keep file.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
@pg Stupid question. I can’t read 1,058,636 people’s minds.
neither can parliament. good reason for a referendum then, huh? if you listened, you would also note i am not suggesting democracy changes. dpf was accusing opposition parties of trying to change democracy, and i called bullshit. you, the fanboy, were toeing the ‘moderate’ line, and i call bullshit on you too.
the onus is on you guys, accusing the opposition to trying to have another election via a referendum. prove this!
Do you think many people who didn’t vote for National care much about asset sales?
um, yes, actually.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
i am not suggesting democracy changes
Ok, so you are happy to have a referendum that takes too long and is ignored.
the onus is on you guys, accusing the opposition to trying to have another election via a referendum. prove this!
Why? All National have to do is tidy up coalition concerns with their sales programme and proceed, no onus of proof required. While ignoring the opposition game playing (but reserving the right to grizzle a bit about the cost of a futile referendum).
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
krazykiwi,
I’m not interested in harassing strangers at the bus stop. I have posted my views on a public forum inviting comment from anyone who wishes to voice disagreement. I note your view that it is “elitist”, “arrogant” and “wrong”. I also note you have provided no argument in support of your position making your contribution a pointless waste of time.
Suffice to say that I would presume you do not believe something true, valid or legitimate simply because most people believe it to be so. Perhaps you are just as arrogant as I.
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
@PG you still miss the point. the opposition want a referendum that takes too long and is ignored. not me. they are justified in initiating a referendum, with enough signitures. and it might improve their chances next election, or stop asset sales. where is the subversion of democracy?
as i said, personally i think they should sell the bloody things. winning and election gives National the power to do this, but claiming a public mandate on one issue is a stretch. on this reasoning, Fonterra’s board would have approved TAF ages ago!
you accuse the opposition of subverting democracy, and again, i ask you for proof that this is what they are doing. you made the accusation, the onus is on you to prove the accusation. i am aware National are able to sell and probably will, but stick to the point!
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
A weak strawman. Where did I suggest this? My assessment was based solely on the content of your statement, which I’ve included again.. in all its glory (emphasis mine)
Vote:March 8th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
krazykiwi (7,483) Says:
March 8th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
My assessment was based solely on the content of your statement,
I haven’t suggested otherwise but thank you for your assessment. It means a lot.
if the educated among us…
Education is elitist? Is that why you highlight this part?
Vote:March 9th, 2012 at 6:29 am
@PG you still miss the point.
I don’t think so.
I don’t think anyone disputed that they are different. The argument is whether it’s reasonable for you or parties to pick and choose which referenda should dictate how politicians vote. I guess we could have a pre-referendum on each referendum to determine if it should be binding or not (the alternative is to have all binding or all not).
It would have to be done seperately because it would afffect how seriously the main referendum would be taken and contested.
Vote:March 9th, 2012 at 8:28 am
rouppe
Vote:If John Key tried to mutter that it would come out with a whole lot more letters in it ..ssstttrrrhhhh a few ccc thrown in..how about a d for good measure,..Sure he could squeeze a few mmmmmmms in there somewhere..You ask too much of dear leader.
March 9th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Weihana,
“Therefore if the educated among us”
By which you mean Liberals. Plenty of educated people do not agree with your liberalism.
“are able to determine objectively”
You cannot do so, because your claim to objective neutrality is a lie. Your dishonestly hiding your liberal bias behind a facade of “science” and objectivity” that is impossible in the real world.
“that certain methods of child rearing are not positive and not healthy”
This would be the same method you used to determine that murdering children outside the womb might be a good thing. Or your claim that a whether or not torturing babies for fun was wrong was only a subjective opinion?
So according to you, smacking is objectivley wrong, because you and a few other liberals say it is, and killing babies or torturing them for fun is not objectivley wrong, because you and a few liberals say so.
Your not “educated”. Your very, very sick and seriously deluded. Seek help.
Vote: