This entry was posted on Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 2:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I don’t see the “not vote” on the linked page… because it doesn’t matter.
It’s pretty clearly there:
Voter turnout is 45.07%. Turnout is calculated by taking the total votes cast of 1,368,925 (being total
valid and invalid votes) as a percentage of the total number of voters enrolled as at 21 November 2013 (3,037,405).
No. They have the percentage that turned out, not the percentage that didn’t turn out.
David calculated the latter himself and put it at the top of his post no doubt because he’s experiencing severe butthurt over the result (quite why I cannot fathom, since it’s nothing more than a popularity contest).
The referendum told us nothing we already didn’t know in that the majority of people don’t like the sale of assets for ideological reasons. This should not be surprising because it’s common sense.
“Don’t throw your toys out of the pram. Your side lost.”
No they won at the last election which Labour called a referendum on asset sales. That was the one to win and Labour got their ass’s handed to them! Most people see this for what it is – a complete waste of time and money.
@Yeswedid. A poll at least tries to be a random sample whereas this sort of vote – many didn’t vote because it was a pointless exercise. No government has ever taken any notice of CIR’s let alone a GIR.
Less than 1/3 of eligible voters said they are against the partial asset sales.
That’s all she wrote. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building. Haters gonna hate, crybabies gonna cry. The rest of us have shopping to do.
The result is very telling. Only 30% of the voting population care enough to actually bother to vote.
Its also a logical conclusion that the 55% who did not vote represent realist who know that this CIR was a joke from the get go and will change nothing, nor mean anything. There is good argument to note that the people who did not turn out either a) do no care or b) support the governments actions.
The CIF was a terrible waste of money to begin with.
– It was not a citizens referendum, but a political stunt pushed by Labour and the Greens
– The questions where misleading and unrepresentative of the scenario. Where was the “support more than 49% sold/less than 49%” etc, or the “sell all government run business/buy more business” etc. Completely loaded CIF as per usual.
– The mandate was given to the government last election WHERE THEY WON after Labour declared the election was a referendum on the sales program!
Tom Jackson (1,922 comments) says:
“Don’t throw your toys out of the pram. Your side lost.”
Does anyone have the last General Election figures in the same format? It would be interesting to see the percentage of the voting population that didn’t vote, and those that voted for the various parties.
@ Nick R (399 comments) says:
December 19th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
I know many people that decided not to vote because JK said he would not be acting on it anyway. Of course there are those that say it people were against the sales they would have got out there and voted to show JK he was wrong, but that argument can go both ways, JK supporters could have ‘got out there and voted’ to show that JK was right!.
Personally I think the results were indicative of other surveys, and are a pretty good indication of those for and against the sales.
@ RightNow (5,977 comments) says:
December 19th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Really? So based on that logic, what percentage of the voters in the last general election vote AGAINST National and JK being Prime Minister or are we not allowed to apply your logic to that question? The sorts of arguments you are using can work both ways and sometimes come back to bite you!
“So based on that logic, what percentage of the voters in the last general election vote AGAINST National and JK being Prime Minister”
About 34% Judith (approx 1 million out of 3 million), applying the same logic.
Care to try and trip me up dreary? I’ve kept my powder dry for your next question
The referendum told us nothing we already didn’t know in that the majority of people don’t like the sale of assets for ideological reasons.
There are four million New Zealanders, about 75% are enrolled voters, about 45% of them bothered to vote onthis, and 67% of 45% of 75% said they want something… that is not a majority, and to say it is a majority is being creative with the truth even by a politician’s standards.
But then, that’s the problem with labour’s whole approach to this issue.
It has been couched in weasel words since even before the 2011 election… when NO-ONE in the real world was talking about asset sales, until the Labour party decided it was the pressing issue of our times and something they could campaign on.
See also: The Clark Govt’s response to the smacking referendum.
There is nothing to suggest that the people who didn’t vote felt any differently to the people who did vote.
Wrong – people who didn’t bother to vote obviously felt less strongly about it than people who did.
Here’s an opinion poll that samples 45.07% of the population, I think the margin of error in extrapolating this out to the whole population would be very, very small.
Misleading. The CIR is NOT a valid opinion poll because it is self-selecting, and there was a major marketing effort towards getting response for the “no” vote, with no corresponding effort for the “yes” vote. Add to that the much discussed problems with the wording of the question, and this, like all previous CIRs will rightly be ignored by the government of the day.
Especially so seeing as the margin on this CIR was much less than most (all?) of the others.
There is good argument to note that the people who did not turn out either a) do no care or b) support the governments actions.
That is the sort of braindead argument put for forward by a Tory. The most likely scenario is c) people who didn’t vote were opposed to asset sales and realised, if they didn’t vote, it would make little difference to the outcome. They were right.
The Right needs to wake up and take notice of this result, though it confirms what we already know: The public do not like publicly owned assets sold off when there is nothing in it for them personally. It’s nothing short of stealing.
What has happened is that the Right has taken a very good principle – that governments should hold no interest in commercial enterprise – and turned it into a very bad idea – that governments should simply sell off those assets already paid for by the sweat and blood of taxpayers, then instead of distributing the proceeds, throw them into the gaping maw of the consolidated fund. It’s become a blind ideological goal that ends up with people feeling (rightly in my opinion) that they have been ripped off.
You can’t laugh off or fudge this result. It is very real and reflects real public sentiment. Key and National are in government in spite of this policy, not because of it. They spent political capital on this timid nonsense, and I pray that they are not caught short when it’s time to pay up next year.
BlairM – that is an extremely good point. One of very few things I’ve read on here that I really wish I could vote up more than once!
Yes We Did – I stand corrected then.
I must have been thinking of all the left political commentators who insisted the result of the smacking CIR was “wrong” and should be ignored… many of whom are doubtless now demanding Key heed the “result” of this referendum!