Much higher yes vote than I expected

December 14th, 2013 at 9:07 am by David Farrar

I was expecting the yes vote in the to be around 15% to 20%. I’m amazed it was 32.1% and the no vote won by 2:1 rather than 4:1.

There wasn’t a single party or organisation campaigning for a yes vote. On the other side Labour, Greens and the unions spent hundreds of thousands first promoting the petition and collecting the signatures and then campaigning for no votes.

There was little reason for yes voters to vote. I actually never got around to it. You knew what the result would be, and more to the point you knew that the referendum was pointless as three of the five companies have already been sold down to 51%.

On the other side there was a lot of reason for a no voter to vote no – it was a way to punish the Government, and try and stop any further sales.

I honestly thought they’s get over 80%, maybe as high as the anti-smacking vote at 85%. Instead they got 67.2% and turnout was well under 50% at 43.9%.

Sure it is still an official victory for the no vote, but far from the crushing blow they wanted – especially considering that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on getting this referendum. How can Labour and Greens demand National implement the result of a 67% referendum result when they remain 1000% opposed to implementing the results of the 85% referendum result on smacking law.

But hey, if Labour thinks the referendum result trumps the last election result, I look forward to their clear policy pledge they will buy back every share sold.

Yeah, Nah.

Tags: ,

106 Responses to “Much higher yes vote than I expected”

  1. ChrisM (101 comments) says:

    Even better than that, the Greens and Labour will have to repeal the antismacking legislation and reduce MPs to 99. Though I know with certainty that they will invoke all sorts or reasons why those votes (which were more comprehensively one sided) don’t matter.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Yoza (1,667 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 38 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Yoza (1,667 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David in Chch (511 comments) says:

    Actually, Yoza at 9.20 am:
    The advertising for the purchase of shares could also have been viewed as a red flag to a bull, and prompted even _more_ of the “No” vote to participate. It was a factor that could have cut both ways.

    And the point that was being made about the 99 seats is that Labour and the Greens must now make that part of their party policies to be consistent with their statements over this referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. rightoverlabour (72 comments) says:

    This is actually a very good result for the right. With all the campaigning, the left either did not bother or don’t agree or this is their maximum support. The rest of the country don’t feel that strong about it and they are by far the majority. 2/3 of 32% is about 21% of the voters. That means 79% did not vote no. Unless my maths is stuffed and I would be quite glad for someone to correct my figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ChardonnayGuy (1,183 comments) says:

    This proves nothing at all… only that citizens initiated referenda are the last bastion of facile populism, left or right. Rather than introduce binding CIRs, the CIR Act 1993 should be repealed to prevent any repetition of these shenanigans.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. peterwn (3,207 comments) says:

    There are suggestions that such referenda results should be binding and furthermore with the advent of the internet that voters should be given the opportunity to vote directly on many issues eg legislation. Why, company shareholders could even vote on board decisions including dividend levels, and National Party members on Board decisions and candidate selection (similar with other parties) It does raise the question of whether there would ever be effective governance under such arrangements. Would shareholders who vote an excessive dividend and bust the company be liable to home detention?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Anthony (785 comments) says:

    We’ve heard over and over from the Left that the majority of the population did not vote for parties supporting asset sales in the last election so there was no mandate for them. Now that only a tiny proportion of the population managed to vote against them, will we hear an admission of defeat?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Neil (571 comments) says:

    A total farce !! Ignorant politicians leading a lemming like population over the cliff. I really worry about a future Labor-Green govt with its big spending policies and people like Wussel Norman and Clayton Cosgrove pushing things. And then there’s Parker who is an advocate of redistribution of wealth.
    However read a piece by Brian Gaynor on the Herald website which paints a buoyant view of NZ in 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. James Stephenson (2,087 comments) says:

    but it is still a loss by a massive landslide.

    Whatever. Less than 30% of eligible voters could be arsed to vote ‘no’, if you want to call that a win then “maaaate, you’re dreeeeaaamin’.”

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. WineOh (596 comments) says:

    I think its really surprising how many people bothered to vote either way, given that the government had given such a clear signal that it wasn’t going to change anything and especially with the majority of transactions have already occurred.

    Hardly the knock-out punch that the opposition was looking for, but will still be worrying for the government. One of the key reasons that the last left-wing government failed was that they were becoming more and more detached from the views and desires of the populace. Anti-smacking bill, shower-heads and eco lightbulbs, electoral finance bill and the seabed & foreshore issues. It is a message from the public to say ‘listen up’ to what we want.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,293 comments) says:

    Labour and Greens should pledge to hold all major legislation pending any possible referendum should they form the next Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Liberty (252 comments) says:

    The referendum was a big fail for the “Coalition of luddites”
    The left vote is basically around 50% The total vote was a miserable turnout of 43% that’s not even getting all their supporters out. let alone the mass populace that the left claim hates the government.
    Out of their supporters they got 67.2% support As it was only luddites and the misinformed voting . 67.2% is a fail.
    As for the more informed voter who saved the government a $1 by binning there voting papers
    There is more to life than the “Coalition of luddites” socialist utopia.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. WineOh (596 comments) says:

    @PG – and face the madness of government by referendum.

    The state of California and the city of San Francisco in particular has had a history of having ridiculously long ballot papers for elections as they have a long line of referendums for decisions that sit squarely in the camp of local government.

    One of the best examples that I recall were two questions next to each other:
    1. Fund renovations and earthquake strengthening of an art museum (closed due to state of disrepair and safety).
    2. Fund construction of new carpark facility for the museum.

    The renovations to allow the museum to re-open failed.
    The carpark facility passed.

    Thank goodness sanity prevailed, and neither went ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    What a joke trying to excuse the results by saying the ‘yes’ voters didn’t need to vote. If anyone felt strongly enough about the issue they would have got off their butts to at least give a vote of confidence to John Key – I think it is shocking that they didn’t.

    The amount that voted is around the normal amount for postal ballots – however, no matter what excuses you come up with, it is a strong indication that the policy was not popular with at least a representative half. But then we already knew that, didn’t we!

    How much have we paid to find out, what we already knew?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,293 comments) says:

    If they were consistent they would pledge that, but I agree that it would be nonsensical. To stop or slow legislation all you would need to do is start a CIR petition.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Tom Jackson (2,486 comments) says:

    Lame spin on a bad defeat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hmmokrightitis (1,566 comments) says:

    I disagree Judith. I still think most no voters are confused as to what partial ownership is – its certainly not what the left paint it to be.

    But then as noted by DPF, I await with glee the left announcing their buyback come their election victory next year…

    Cue tumbleweed…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yoza (1,667 comments) says:

    David in Chch (484 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 9:25 am

    And the point that was being made about the 99 seats is that Labour and the Greens must now make that part of their party policies to be consistent with their statements over this referendum.

    The policies of political parties will be decided by citizen’s initiated referenda? Good luck getting that to fly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. adze (1,982 comments) says:

    At least the farce is over. If the people who voted ‘No’ really put their money where their mouth was (assuming most voters truly are against partial privatisation), they would have voted this government out in 2011.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy (816 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 9:27 am
    This proves nothing at all… only that citizens initiated referenda are the last bastion of facile populism, left or right. Rather than introduce binding CIRs, the CIR Act 1993 should be repealed to prevent any repetition of these shenanigans.

    Couldn’t agree more!
    Disappointing that the Greens and Labour went ahead with such a political stunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Sofia (828 comments) says:

    I eagerly await a comment from Cunliffe regarding the number that this Referendum indicates, were opposed to partial assets sales but still voted National, rather than for Labour or any other alternative.

    I look forward to the third Labour leader since the Election explaining that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David in Chch (511 comments) says:

    Sigh. That was the whole point, Yoza! I was making the point that the parties, _if they were going to be consistent_, would now change their party policies. That is not going to happen, is it? Maybe you need more coffee to get the day started?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Well put together comment DPF.

    Lots of your Wellington mates however are stropping themselves big time over a perceived victory of some sort.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ hmmokrightitis (1,403 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 9:54 am

    I think you are wrong, many understand exactly what it means.

    A year ago, New Zealanders as a whole owned 100% of them and the benefit to the country was 100%.

    Now, New Zealanders (as a whole own 51%) and the benefit to the country is 51%. A further small percentage of New Zealanders own some of the shares, and the benefit goes to them, which they may spend in NZ and therefore a very small percentage of their dividend may have a small benefit to the country, but nothing like the 100% that it was previously.

    The money from the sales did not produce the amount that was initially claimed – and so the promised ‘things’ we were to receive have been drastically reduced.

    In the meantime we will need that money received in the future to help us deal with all the other social damage, including shocking education stats etc, that have been a result of almost 15 years of absolutely shocking governance of this, once, wonderful country.

    I didn’t agree with the sales, although I did consider hypocritically purchasing shares – I am glad now I didn’t.

    Key and every other politician that currently sits in the house (except for 2 National, and one Green MP that I do like) can all sucks eggs as far as I’m concerned (that includes all parties). None of them have an ounce of integrity – I’m sick of their false promises, their game playing, and their lack of vision for this country that will benefit all New Zealanders.

    JK’s figures don’t add up anymore now than when he first came up with them. NO decent PM does not have a Plan B. JK got my vote the first time he ran, he didn’t the next time because he failed to produce that plan b – and National sure as hell won’t this time unless JK stands down and allows someone else to head the party. I have absolutely no confidence in him to lead this country – as I said no person with any intelligence doesn’t have a back up plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,293 comments) says:

    David Cunliffe and Russel Norman pledge to make CIR binding and they will halt any bills pending petition and vote.

    Labour and Greens pledge binding CIR

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SPC (5,472 comments) says:

    There is no reason why the result should be much different to the polls – which showed the same 2 to 1 ratio.

    It is not that difficult to make a postal vote.

    Tick or cross and mail.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Yoza (1,667 comments) says:

    Sofia (608 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 10:04 am

    I eagerly await a comment from Cunliffe regarding the number that this Referendum indicates, were opposed to partial assets sales but still voted National, rather than for Labour or any other alternative.

    I look forward to the third Labour leader since the Election explaining that.

    I look forward to John Key defining categorically that a victory, without a convincing public mandate, is an acceptable platform from which a convincing argument can be presented that undermines, comprehensively, Labours contention that such a mandate could be seen as evidence that no such form of public consensus could be reached through a rigorously adopted political process.

    I look forward to John Key defining that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Grant (428 comments) says:

    Why then, were TV3 crowing last night: “two thirds of New Zealanders have voted against the government’s asset sales programme”?

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Asset-sales-referendum-results-announced/tabid/1607/articleID/325102/Default.aspx

    Who writes this shit for them.

    In fact 2/3 of less than 50% voted no, so why did this media outlet deliberately, IMHO, set out to mislead their viewership?

    I challenge someone from TV3, and I’m sure there are TV3 editorial staff amongst this blog’s readership, Brooke Sabin perhaps, to post a justification of this approach, or at least explain why a complaint shouldn’t be made to the BSA?
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    SPC

    Why bother voting? – CIR on whether it will get dark tonight – it will so why waste your time.

    And this wasn’t a CIR it was a green party being wankers IR.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Longknives (4,678 comments) says:

    “Why then, were TV3 crowing last night: “two thirds of New Zealanders have voted against the government’s asset sales programme”?

    Classic left-wing politics mate- the truth is irrelevant….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. adze (1,982 comments) says:

    @Grant

    Because TV3 is a biased news source, and will be as long as the likes of John Campbell have editorial influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. peterwn (3,207 comments) says:

    “David Cunliffe and Russel Norman pledge to make CIR binding and they will halt any bills pending petition and vote.”

    Would this include bills to raise taxes?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Grant (350 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 10:16 am

    You need to be careful when you start playing with the numbers

    If John Key can say he had a mandate with the percentage he got – with such a poor voter turn out as we had at the last election, then I think those that are crowing over this result are just as entitled. JK did not get voted in by the majority of NZers eligible to vote – so if you apply your rational, it also applies to the asset sales, and questions the declaration of a ‘mandate’ – doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dime (9,656 comments) says:

    I just went to stuff and the herald and the result isn’t mentioned lol not on the front page anyway.

    Fail

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Yoza

    The Prime Minister got his mandate in November 2011, he doesn’t have to re-visit it every 12 months because somebody is sulking and the immature left don’t like stuff

    You get a chance to give someone a mandate next year – I say chance only.

    I must also say your man Hone spending some of his leaders budget to go to SA will have done a shit load of good for his constituents living in the north, I’m sure some oldy waiting to get into a “Kaumatua flat” will understand that the money may have been spent on grandstanding by the guy they voted for.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    Anyone who didn’t vote – which includes me – did so because they have no objection to the sales.

    Those who object turned out to be very much a minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Sofia (828 comments) says:

    Reputedly the debt is about $60 billion
    The partial asset sales were initially going to offset that by $6 billion tops.
    So why did the Government not just do whatever was going to cover the remaining $54 billion, just 11% better, or more, to cover the full $ 60 billion.

    Or less than 10% considering saving $100m on selling assets, $9m referendum, still having the assets and their dividends, and saving all the fucking time Parliament has spent selling the assets and opposing their sales?

    So how is the other $55.5 billion being serviced?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Most of the populace have a socialist mentality. NZ is fucked big time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Grant (428 comments) says:

    Less than half of us voted in the general election Judith?

    Wow. Didn’t know that.

    My point was that TV3′s statement was a lie. Nothing more.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Yoza (1,667 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (4,738 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 10:23 am

    Yoza

    The Prime Minister got his mandate in November 2011, he doesn’t have to re-visit it every 12 months because somebody is sulking and the immature left don’t like stuff

    My last post was convoluted nonsense, I was taking the piss out of Sofia’s confusing post.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney (3,109 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 10:23 am
    “Anyone who didn’t vote – which includes me – did so because they have no objection to the sales”.

    You cannot make that bullshit call unless you have canvassed all, or at least a representative sample of the eligible voters!!

    You should be a politician – that’s the sort of nonsense crap we get from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Scott1 (480 comments) says:

    Regardless of the referendum we know about the % of the public that opposes the idea (so yes the official poll is a waste of time) and that is pretty much the same as the poll results (so if you are trying to imply that the poll is distorted in favour of the no vote that does not seem to be supported by the evidence).

    The fact that National won the election does not mean that all the polling and the actual vote is wrong (that would be a ridiculous claim). Instead it just means that labour was a weak opposition in regard to other factors.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. duggledog (1,425 comments) says:

    Further to my post on GD –

    I wonder how many of the people who voted ‘No’, would have preferred to keep the assets, and raise the money required by STRIPPING BACK MASSIVE SPENDING IN NON PRODUCTIVE AREAS which is what I and many others hoped National would do.

    Understandably they didn’t in the short term for obvious reasons, but growing the economy to keep huge government spending intact is a little bit like a family continuing to have overseas holidays and nice cars they can’t afford by taking on weekend work and night work along with their regular nine to fives. To keep up with the Jones’.

    Because all that’s going to happen is, the Luddites will eventually get back in and the socialist edifices will still be there for them to balloon back out again

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Than (440 comments) says:

    This is an extremely encouraging result.

    Since before the 2011 election there have been a number of polls showing Kiwi’s were opposed to asset sales, and the referendum result is roughly in line with those. But those polls were unbiased statistical samples. The referendum was heavily weighted towards the No result, for all the reasons DPF listed. To get a result in line with the polls indicates the number of middle-ground voters (people not already pre-disposed either way) opposing asset sales must be lower than 67% – possibly even below 50%.

    This is a pleasing sign of economic sanity in the electorate, which should have Labour and the Green very worried.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    “Longknives (3,500 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 10:19 am
    “Why then, were TV3 crowing last night: “two thirds of New Zealanders have voted against the government’s asset sales programme”?

    Classic left-wing politics mate- the truth is irrelevant….”

    TV3′s Tim Watkin was on Larry Williams Show on ZB last evening. What an absolute tool this guy was ( You’re Ok Larry, you just didn’t play for Celtic), I mean he was so resoundingly immature that you would have thought that it was a starry eyed 6th former speaking.

    So thats why TV3 is such shit- . The media have protections enshrined in law, you would hope that they would be able to report matters factually and let us, the public, form our own opinions, but no, we get the opinions of the likes of Gower who is becoming more and more of clown daily.

    Reporters report – just the facts ma’am, – bloggers and editorials do the opinion pieces,

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    My last post was convoluted nonsense,

    Yoza, if it wasn’t such a stunningly beautiful day I would write something like ” only that one” but the days a cracker so I won’t do that, I’ll go and watch United play softball instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Some 71% of the voting population either support the asset sales, or are comfortable with them to the extent that they didn’t feel the need to oppose them.

    That is a massive endorsement of the National-led government and reinforces the mandate for the Mixed Ownership Model.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hj (6,697 comments) says:

    I only opened the envelope(s) after it was too late thinking they were checking details for the next general election.

    I don’t think the referendum result proves a lot is so far as the arguments are not so straight forward. We can say people voted yes or no but we can’t say how well they were understood. My intial thoughts were [we built those hydro dams] + [look at the profits Fay Richwaite made when NZ rail was sold]. I was influenced by Gareth Morgan who supported the sales. later when I read how National was privatising the high country delivering super profits to land owners I thought Fuck em! It was too late however.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ bhudson (4,536 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 10:39 am

    What a load of propaganda – that is a bullshit answer and something you cannot prove unless you now canvas a representative sample of the people that didn’t vote – to ensure that was the reason they did not vote.

    There are thousands of reasons given when people have canvassed non-voters – most of them have very little to do with the questions or topic.

    And further to your bullshit answer, one could also say that clearly not enough people agreed with the sales and therefore did NOT want to give JK that vote of confidence. … you can twist anything in politics!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. double d (225 comments) says:

    I wonder what sheeple would vote if given the proposition:

    Do you approve of paying income tax;
    Yes or No.

    what is missing is context. and this is why the referendum is a complete and utter fail.

    If the question was along the lines of do you support the partial sale of assets as part of the governments economic package to stimulate the economy …….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Alan (1,077 comments) says:

    I tossed my ballot papers in the bin; this was not an endorsement of asset sales, simply a recognition that they have largely already happened. What’s done is done.

    If the CIR had taken place before the sales had taken place, and was binding, I’d have voted.

    I like binding referendums, I like anything that removes power from professional politicians forces the people to make societies, sure some of them will be dumb, but that’s democracy for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. hj (6,697 comments) says:

    To understand privatisation you have to look at case studies; it require a certain level of ram and good explanation . The public are bamboozled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. CharlieBrown (921 comments) says:

    895,322 voted against partial asset sales, 1,470,755 voted against the smacking law. Almost a majority of registered voters took the effort to vote against the smacking ban law, and nothing even close to that figure voted against the partial asset sales. If John Key backs down from partially selling genesis energy shares I will be absolutely f*cked of at the c&nt considering he voted down reform to the smacking law just 2 weeks after the smacking referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    To put it into a FPP context (which everyone around here loves so much!)

    Electorates opposed to asset sales: 68

    Electorates that support asset sales:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Stupid editor…

    To put it into a FPP context (which everyone around here loves so much!)

    Electorates opposed to asset sales: 68

    Electorates that support asset sales: 2

    To claim 1/3 support as a ‘success’ is not only desperate, but when espoused by those (many of you) who oppose MMP, it reveals that you simply oppose MMP because it doesn’t work in your favour, not because it is flawed in any way. It’s called having your cake and eating it too.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Ross12 (1,260 comments) says:

    Firstly it is time for Keeping Stock to bring his list Labour Govt. initiated asset sales again, as reminder.

    Secondly I’d say that “popular” decisions are not always the best decisions.

    Thirdly –I heard the Grey Power guy whose name was used on the referendum when it was submitted being interviewed by Hosking yesterday. One of the questions was about binding referendums. Hosking made the point that if you had them there would need to a figure/hurdle over which the result had to get before it was enacted. The guy agreed and said that a figure of about 75% would be needed, to be fair. ( he did not say whether he thought it should be 75% of the eligible voters or 75% of those who voted in the referendum). I think the guy is right ( with the specifics clarified) but he and his supporters would have lost on this particular issue.

    While I agree that this referendum was a political stunt, it has created damage in terms of an impression being set, which the Govt. will have to fight next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    If Cunnylips didn’t look like a bloody Turtle and Wussel didn’t sound like a squeaky little boy whose balls hadn’t dropped I may have voted “YES”.

    But I didn’t! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. stephieboy (2,507 comments) says:

    I think David Farrar and the far right toadies here are been rather disingenuous in trumpeting 32 % as a great success . The obvious question needs to be asked what if the referendum was the reverse with 62.7 % in favour of asset sales.?
    I doubt very much if they would be crowing about the 32 % against.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Jack5 (4,818 comments) says:

    “Boredboy”, “Johnboy,” “Stephieboy”…. what’s with all the “-boy” pseudonyms?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    stephieboy

    67% of 43.9% which out of 100% is about 23% of eligible voters so in fact not even leftie retards gave a toss about this waste of money.

    But carry on stroking yourself by all means.

    he obvious question needs to be asked what if the referendum was the reverse with 62.7 % in favour of asset sales.?
    I doubt very much if they would be crowing about the 32 % against.

    It would still only be about 23% of eligible voters and as such , like your comment, totally irrelevant

    But carry on stroking yourself by all means

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Matthew Hooton (126 comments) says:

    You are so right on this DPF. I expected 80:20. 67:23 is a loss for the left, especially on the turnout. Bashed out a few thoughts at NBR: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/no-joy-left-referendum-result-150069

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    If I was a labour or green voter ( and thank the lord I’m not sir) I would be devastated with this result, they couldn’t even enlist their core let alone scare some floaters into supporting this wank.

    David and Russell – that warm breeze circulating around the back of your necks is the first practice swipes of the knives,

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Johnboy’s have been commenting on this blog since we were invented back on Walton’s Mountain in 1930 Jack5.

    As for the rest of the “boys” you will just have to ask them again. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    There were nine green millions hanging on it all
    There were nine green millions hanging on it all
    And if nine green millions should accidently fall
    There are all the stupid taxpayers to take the bloody fall! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. wrightingright (145 comments) says:

    hah, I didn’t bother to vote either! As meh, as “whatever” about this “referendum”.

    And I’m a pure free marketer, so of course I would’ve voted for yes, I’d like 100% sell off of everything!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    Judith,

    You cannot make that bullshit call unless you have canvassed all, or at least a representative sample of the eligible voters!!

    I do make that call because, as you obliquely observe, this was a self-selected minority poll and therefore worthless.

    For some reason the execrable TV3 cannot grasp this simple but essential fact.

    What we do know is that only those who cared about the vote actually voted.

    Anyone who didn’t vote either supports asset sales or doesn’t care strongly enough about the issue to bother ticking a box and posting an envelope.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Pauleastbay (4,746 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    You can play with the figures all you like, but unless you can prove that every single person that didn’t vote in the referendum would have voted in favour of the asset sales, you are stuck with the figures, that showing 2/1 are against the sales.

    The vote is taken as representative and actually gives the other teams a bit to work with.

    IF the Key supporters had felt so strongly that he was doing the right thing, then why didn’t they get out there and show their support? IF (and that is an if because you don’t know) the vote went the way it did because national supporters stayed away – then bigger fools them. They had the perfect opportunity to gain some important points heading into the next election, by voting and showing their support for Key and letting the rest of the country see that he has the support behind him. That would have gained some good publicity and counteracted what the other teams can now throw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    You are right on to the crux of the matter Judith and I’m certain Bill will acknowledge your point of view when he flogs off Genesis! ! ….. :) :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney (3,110 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    You DO NOT know why other people didn’t vote. You are ‘ass-umming’.

    As I have said, your argument can be turned around – John Key’s supporters didn’t care enough about the asset sales, to provide him with a vote of confidence heading into the election year. Had they felt sufficiently pleased with what national has done, they would have got out there in great numbers and made sure the opposition had nothing to use against the government!!

    (of course we don’t know whether that was it or not – the fact is we simply do not know why people didn’t vote – People don’t vote in high numbers in most referendums, or local body elections – you can say it is because they don’t care – but you can’t say in which way that ‘don’t care’ is aimed – maybe they think JK is a total jerk, and there is no point in voting because he said he wasn’t going to listen to the results anyway).

    You can twist it all you like, but in this instance it can be twisted right back at you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,072 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    And that’s exactly it – the government made it perfectly clear that they were never going to listen, and I suspect that is why many people didn’t vote – I actually know a few that didn’t for that exact reason – their general opinion was “whats the point, Key will do whatever he f…..ing well wants and all his little bum boys will keep licking his ass’!

    Which is of course, exactly why Key made that statement – to stop people being bothered to vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Meanwhile I am hoping Bill grows a pair and flicks off the ACC fund and the Cullen fund before losing the 2014 election ala Cullens spend up.

    Now that would bugger Cunnlip’s and Ginga’s plans! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    You DO NOT know why other people didn’t vote. You are ‘ass-umming’.

    Clearly they don’t wish to protest about “asset” sales.

    …John Key’s supporters didn’t care enough about the asset sales, to provide him with a vote of confidence

    “Asset” sales is the default position. That’s the key point. I don’t have to vote for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    If you’ve never licked National arse’s don’t knock it till you’ve tried it Judith!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Sofia (828 comments) says:

    Aucklanders re-elect Brown as Mayor then find out two days later Brown is not who he represented himself to be. Aucklanders wear that because Len says he so sincerely hopes they will – too fucking bad for them.

    Likewise, the Referendum. By showing how many people opposed partial asset sales but still voted National, really emphasises how fucking useless those same people believed Labour to be – proven by the Labour Party being onto their third leader now since the Election. Silly position to put themselves in, but sadder still that they and the Greens spent taxpayer money on the “people’s initiated referendum” to show the number prepared to sacrifice assets rather than vote for Opposition parties.

    So it will interesting to see if New Zealanders will just take the next item straight up the blerta and smile in appreciation –

    The TPP
    These agreements, written by corporate lobbyists, are so secret that the democratic representatives of sovereign countries are not even allowed to read the contents or debate the terms – they are just told to sign on the dotted line, effectively rubber-stamping legislation that is antithetical to the vast majority their citizens’ interests, which gives greater sovereign powers to the interests of the corporations than it does to nation states, and which will criminalize and directly harm the people of the world in the interests of the few.

    One of the proposals is that multinational corporations can sue national governments for future lost profits based on patents not granted or environmental restrictions. This is nothing short of full-on corporatism where international law and global treaties serve a handful of large corporations to the detriment of national sovereignty, environmental health and even human life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Do you speak French Sofia? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney (3,111 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    I was using that example, and made it perfectly clear that we don’t know why people didn’t vote – and without polling each and every one of them, we never will. You see it your way, clearly you’re a Keyasslicker, I don’t see it that way.

    My best friend and her husband are Keyasslickers too, but they are against the sales but both are members of the National party. One voted no and the other decided not to vote in the referendum.

    I do not honestly believe you can draw any inferences from those who didn’t vote – you cannot keep saying it was ‘because of’, you simply do not know what the result would have been and therefore are stuck with what it is –

    which is something that gives the next government (if its not National) plenty of ammo to force a buy back or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    “My best friend and her husband are Keyasslickers too”

    You have friends Judith?

    What a surprise!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,075 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Ahh, but I have. My family are true blue Nats. I have a cousin that was a National Minister, and two (now dead) family members that were Nat MP’s. Like I say, when we have a family reunion Gargamel turns up – everyone is so bloody blue! (Actually not everyone, there is another second cousin who is a green party MP, and a few take that stance, so I guess that makes us more a turquoise family now).

    I voted for Key once, was so disappointed with his obnoxious refusal to have more than one plan, I didn’t the next time. Having met the man, I can’t stand him. Will not vote for national again until he is gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,077 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    You have friends Judith?

    Yes I do! Amazing huh? And they aren’t the facebook variety either! The aforementioned has known me since we went to playcentre together as toddlers. I kinda figure she must at least be able to tolerate me, having stuck around so long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    I really enjoy drawing out confessions like this Judith.

    I suspect the number crunchers that inhabit KB will be analysing your words to identify you already. :)

    Anyway tell us who you will vote for next time and why. Some of us may even agree with you! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,079 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    They are welcome to try. I never give a thought to who anyone is on here – people’s private lives don’t interest me at this level.

    I have no idea who I am going to vote for in the next election. I am pretty disgusted with the whole lot of them to be honest. I have a great deal of respect for Gerry Brownlee, and simply adored Lockwood Smith. But neither of them are going to be PM candidates.

    I doubt I would vote Green, there are one or two goodies among them, but the rest are compost material. (they’d like that insult).

    Labour – wellllllllllll, where does one start? Can’t see them offering me anything I would vote for.

    If Rodney Hide came back to ACT – I’d think about that, and Colin Craig – nope – we already have enough ‘fruit loops’ in the house.

    The Maori party won’t let me vote for them (incorrect whakapapa) – and that’s about it isn’t it? Oh unless Kim Dot Com starts a party, I guess it could be the ‘protest’ vote option.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘The Prime Minister got his mandate in November 2011,’

    pfffffff

    Key didn’t get any mandate but a public afraid of nanny state Labour.

    As National is now entering that avenue you can kiss them good bye 2014

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Sounds like you have Winston, Dunny and Banksy…(if recipient of a get out of jail card) to chose from Judith!

    So much for some good advice from you!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy

    I’m not opposed to asset sales, I’m more than happy for AirNZ to go – I just believe that power is the one thing that should be retained by the government 100%. Hell, they can sell the Harbour Bridge for all I care – (if they haven’t already, I seem to remember someone trying to sell it some years back – and some idiots thinking they were buying shares in it).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Do you see a resurgence of the United Murri/Hone party then wikiriwhis business? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    There is approx $50b in the Cullen/ACC fund Judith. The true jewel in the Crowns asset fund! Why not sell?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,081 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Sorry, forgot about them. Dunny – not in a million years – there comes a time when people need to accept they have ‘dun’ their bit and withdraw nicely – that time has come and gone for dunners.

    Winston? I love watching him in the house – the humour value is almost as good as Mrs Brown’s Boys – but??? Hmm, I’ve never really considered it.

    Banksy? Sorry – who??? I think he might have been yesterday’s custard. Besides every time I see a photo of him I imagine him with a wand in his hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    IF the Key supporters had felt so strongly that he was doing the right thing, then why didn’t they get out there and show their support? IF (and that is an if because you don’t know) the vote went the

    Judith

    Well over 2/3 ‘s of us realise you have issues but most just can’t be fucked pointing it out to you on a daily basis. This is an identical situation to this waste of time and money referendum. It served no purpose other than to make the greens and labour realise that they do not have the amount of support they think they do., which getting back to you translates to your situation in that you have no fucking idea most of the time but people let it slide

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,083 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    Hmmmm, I don’t know that you could sell the funds Johnboy? In what way would you propose a sale?

    They could privatise ACC, but the fund? – isn’t that like ‘money in the bank’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Surely the management rights of $25b would command a high price Judith. Far more than a dodgy power generating company?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business (2,649 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
    ‘The Prime Minister got his mandate in November 2011,’

    pfffffff<

    Well he had one in 2008 as well – you are woefully misinformed on most subjects Wiki , go away do some reading and then come back. Twitter is not the place from which to get your belief system

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Pauleastbay (4,747 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Oh really, 2/3rds? And you have taken a vote have you to determine that?

    I’ve seen a fair few poke shyte at you to – but I’m not so stupid enough or dishonest enough to put a figure on the numbers in some sort of veiled attempt at yet more bullying and intimidation. Pull ya head in Paul – I couldn’t care less if everyone here disagreed with me – I have the right to post my opinions as long as DPF allows it – and just because you and your whingy little friends, who can’t stand someone that doesn’t agree with them, find me ‘different’ – I’m afraid I can only take that as a compliment – being different from you and your four little buddies is one of the things I aspire to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (12,084 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    Yeah, but I don’t think the public would go for it. They tend to regard it as their money, and if the management made a mistake then that could have drastic consequences for many.

    It’s not something I really know enough about – and I can’t even comprehend how it could work that would make it profitable for someone – especially with the risk involved? Sorry – not clued up on ACC etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Anyway. I’m meant to be hoeing the pumpkin patch and the missus will kill me if it isn’t done before she get’s back from spending all my money at Queensgate. So au revoir till later team. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    JB

    Teasing Judith about the ACC fund is not getting your gardening done – Judith, that bridge is still for sale by the way

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘Do you see a resurgence of the United Murri/Hone party then wikiriwhis business’

    United no. Dunne has absolutely no confidence and has one seat which could be successfully contested in 2014

    Harawira is intelligent, forthright and a good communicator. His downfall are the rabid radicals beside him. He shot himself in the foot leaving Maori. He could now be the leader with far more credible lieutenants. I’m sure that reality will sink in sometime in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Harawira is intelligent ignorant, forthright ignorant and a good communicator ignorant

    There fixed it for you

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    Len Brown got a mandate too. .just saying

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Pauleastbay (4,753 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    He wasn’t teasing. He was testing to see if I’d play his game, and either protest loudly that it shouldn’t be sold or agree it should be. I wanted to see how far he would take it, which was why I mentioned the bridge and asked about the risk involved – but his pumpkins were more important. In other words, he didn’t get the bite he was hoping for.

    Johnboy likes to fish -

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    I love things that smell like fish! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Hardly any bite back despite the state of their gums! :)

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

    Judith (4,801 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Banksy? Sorry – who??? I think he might have been yesterday’s custard. Besides every time I see a photo of him I imagine him with a wand in his hand.
    =========================================
    so you see Banksy as a fairy. No wonder he supported Louisa Wall.

    But but Banksy has always been the tough guy. well on radio.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Warren Murray (289 comments) says:

    I didnt vote, but i think its a big call to believe all non voters supported the Government’s decision. Im my case, it would be true. Ironically i was opposed to asset sales (but didn’t sign the petition).

    Solid Energy changed that. It showed that the Government’s ownership involves risks that it should avoid. Mixed ownership means private shareholders will expect a dividend and it spreads the risk

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. ChardonnayGuy (1,183 comments) says:

    What really annoyed me is that the time wasted focusing attention on this piece of cheap populist theatre could have been better spent by the Left engaging in policy development to do with their proposed capital gains tax as their alternative fiscal management and revenue gathering strategy to asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Left Right and Centre (2,876 comments) says:

    How to get 80%+ participation….

    Tick yes if you want to see both Green Party co-leaders dropped off a stool into a vat of cow shit….

    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.