TOP Party one to watch in this election

[Aaron]

Have not read much except this article.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/top-promises-leg-up-for-under-30s-with-civic-service-on-the-side

Investing in the future of NZ an interesting concept other parties may not have considered in their haste to brown nose boomers.

No talk of the Equity Tax and no talk of universal basic income???

Thought I would post here instead of reading TOPs website so I could find out everything wrong with their ideas so I can approach their marketing with an open mind.

Income tax policy seems to be the opposite of ACT with a $15,000 tax free threshold. 45% top tax rate over $250,000 not sure what they are thinking based on what I read all the rich people will leave NZ.

Interesting to hear that Chris Hipkins GST "idea" came from a "focus group". What is a focus group? and should they be deciding policy for all NZ?

Grant Robertson likes the GST idea now he is "in it for us" but David Parker appears to have some integrity and won't say what he thinks. Chippy deserves to lose.

Although Luxon's latest greatest idea is to get foreigners to boost the value of his residential portfolio. This does not appear to consider young NZers or that fact that foreigners buying existing houses adds very little to NZ other than the price of houses. I guess Chris's kids will be OK though.

[dln]

Extended interview with Raf Manji (on BHN)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qC2bR644WgU

[nztx]

Have not read much except this article.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/top-promises-leg-up-for-under-30s-with-civic-service-on-the-side

Investing in the future of NZ an interesting concept other parties may not have considered in their haste to brown nose boomers.

No talk of the Equity Tax and no talk of universal basic income???

Thought I would post here instead of reading TOPs website so I could find out everything wrong with their ideas so I can approach their marketing with an open mind.

Income tax policy seems to be the opposite of ACT with a $15,000 tax free threshold. 45% top tax rate over $250,000 not sure what they are thinking based on what I read all the rich people will leave NZ.

Interesting to hear that Chris Hipkins GST "idea" came from a "focus group". What is a focus group? and should they be deciding policy for all NZ?

Grant Robertson likes the GST idea now he is "in it for us" but David Parker appears to have some integrity and won't say what he thinks. Chippy is a di*k and deserves to lose.

Although Luxon's latest greatest idea is to get foreigners to boost the value of his residential portfolio. This does not appear to consider young NZers or that fact that foreigners buying existing houses adds very little to NZ other than the price of houses. I guess Chris's kids will be OK though. What a cu*t.



Focus Group = probably a meet up with the skoolkids at one of the local Primary schools
previously aka as a Think tank .. the only problem now being that Labour are incapable of that ;)

In desperate times everyone else are pushing their own concepts for policy and it's lost on Labour
who now know at best they will be possums in the headlights having to roll with punches of the factions
and trojan hijackers, if not completely swept away by Kiwis at large who have basically had a guts full
of Lab/Green BS after past 6 years :)

[justakiwi]

Yep, first $15,000 of income tax free but tax rate for anyone earning $15,000-$80,000 moves to 20%. Which, for those at the lower/middle of that income bracket, pretty much negates the "tax free" amount.

Not to mention the new Land Tax, which doesn't effect me obviously, but if it did, I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

A land value tax at 0.75% of the value of urban residential land, paid annually.


Commercial, rural, conservation and Māori land would be excluded.
Superannuants could opt to defer payment until there is a change in ownership of the property



Then there is Phase 2:

Universal Basic Income:


Introduce a $16,500 annual tax-free income to all citizens and residents aged between 18 and 65 years, paid weekly. There won’t be any changes to superannuation.

A UBI will enable people to take time out to invest in themselves (e.g. study or retrain). And, it will free many Kiwis from the welfare trap where they are subject to an undignified, punitive and expensive welfare system. Those on welfare transfers larger than the UBI will be topped up to the original.
The introduction of a Universal Basic Income will grow New Zealand's economy (https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/macroeconomic-effects-universal-basic-income-ubi/), and it is estimated to be fiscally neutral (within 1% of GDP).

Alongside our plan to introduce a Universal Basic Income, we will also introduce several targeted reforms to create a highly progressive tax system:


Remove tax loopholes and simplify the tax system with a single income tax rate of 35% (for personal, company and trust income).
Increase the annual land value tax on residential land (established in Phase 1) to 1.25%.


You going to vote for this? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Daytr]

Yeah I'm not sure why they went away from a CGT to a land tax. Many countries have land taxes but I don't think it's going to solve anything and just makes housing more expensive.

[nztx]

Here's your Land Tax bill for the year (whether you sold, bought land or otherwise) ;)


Be like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas to most ;)


Considering many are struggling to pay bills with high COL & other increases, another impost
similar to Annualised rates in one hit is likely to go down really well out in greater KiwiLand ;)


Yet another crazy Pie in the Sky Taxing Policy dribble from TOP most unlikely to go down well in many camps :)



Almost as dumb as Greens & TP Maori's stance on Wealth Tax especially given Tax & likely Wealth Tax exemption likely on Maori & other large Incorporation Assets/Results ..

[SBQ]

In regards to TOP's tax policy, you would think a self proclaimed 'economist' Gareth Morgan would know better about economics. But what does he care, he's made billions off selling TradeMe. Oh and his charitable organisation has done nothing... never hear a thing in the media release on it's achievements.

[clearasmud]

Yep, first $15,000 of income tax free but tax rate for anyone earning $15,000-$80,000 moves to 20%. Which, for those at the lower/middle of that income bracket, pretty much negates the "tax free" amount.

Not to mention the new Land Tax, which doesn't effect me obviously, but if it did, I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

A land value tax at 0.75% of the value of urban residential land, paid annually.


Commercial, rural, conservation and Māori land would be excluded.
Superannuants could opt to defer payment until there is a change in ownership of the property



Then there is Phase 2:

Universal Basic Income:


Introduce a $16,500 annual tax-free income to all citizens and residents aged between 18 and 65 years, paid weekly. There won’t be any changes to superannuation.

A UBI will enable people to take time out to invest in themselves (e.g. study or retrain). And, it will free many Kiwis from the welfare trap where they are subject to an undignified, punitive and expensive welfare system. Those on welfare transfers larger than the UBI will be topped up to the original.
The introduction of a Universal Basic Income will grow New Zealand's economy (https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/macroeconomic-effects-universal-basic-income-ubi/), and it is estimated to be fiscally neutral (within 1% of GDP).

Alongside our plan to introduce a Universal Basic Income, we will also introduce several targeted reforms to create a highly progressive tax system:


Remove tax loopholes and simplify the tax system with a single income tax rate of 35% (for personal, company and trust income).
Increase the annual land value tax on residential land (established in Phase 1) to 1.25%.


You going to vote for this? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Yes I could.

[justakiwi]

Why? Serious question.

A single tax rate of 35%??????



Yes I could.

[Baa_Baa]

Wikipedia "The Opportunities Party is a radical centrist political party based in New Zealand. It was founded in 2016 by economist and philanthropist Gareth Morgan and is today led by Raf Manji.Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Opportunities_Party)"

I think that the whole purpose, or strategy if you like, of TOP, given that they have zero chance of getting into government, is to win a ministerial seat and they have heavily weighted their ambitions on their leader Raf Mani who is going after Christchurch’s Ilam electorate.

Other than that, they're an outlier and have no policies that would resonate with the majority of the population imo, and are completely deficient on numerous other important policy matters.

A wasted vote.

[clearasmud]

Why? Serious question.

A single tax rate of 35%??????

I thought you said 15k tax free then 20% to 80k plus a Universal income of 16.5k

[justakiwi]

Read the rest of what I posted under Phase 2 of their plan.


I thought you said 15k tax free then 20% to 80k plus a Universal income of 16.5k

[Logen Ninefingers]

What's the point of discussing all the things TOP will be implementing - when they don't have a hope in hell of getting any of it done?!
Even Winston knows to settle for himself as Minister of Foreign Affairs + a regional slush fund, he knows he can't start remaking tax laws.
'Phase 2 of their plan'....rofl, wake me up when they are over the 5% threshold....clear that and they may just get an associate minister position for Raf Manji if by some miracle they find themselves within cooee of being 'kingmaker'.

[justakiwi]

You could say the same for any of the minor parties. NZF, The Greens .... none of them are ever going to be in a position to actually implement their policies. Best they could hope for is to get one or two through as part of a coalition government, but you can bet your bottom dollar they will never get anything major through.

Besides which, the only purpose of discussing it, is because policy is what voters look to when making their voting decisions. There are slim pickings this time round. People are looking at parties they wouldn't have even bothered looking at in the past, just to see if "maybe" their policies have merit, and warrant a vote.

TOP's do not.


What's the point of discussing all the things TOP will be implementing - when they don't have a hope in hell of getting any of it done?!
Even Winston knows to settle for himself as Minister of Foreign Affairs + a regional slush fund, he knows he can't start remaking tax laws.
'Phase 2 of their plan'....rofl, wake me up when they are over the 5% threshold....clear that and they may just get an associate minister position for Raf Manji if by some miracle they find themselves within cooee of being 'kingmaker'.

[clearasmud]

Read the rest of what I posted under Phase 2 of their plan.

I'm quite keen and curious about a land tax.
I hate what high land and building costs have done to the standard of living.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You could say the same for any of the minor parties. NZF, The Greens .... none of them are ever going to be in a position to actually implement their policies. Best they could hope for is to get one or two through as part of a coalition government, but you can bet your bottom dollar they will never get anything major through.

Besides which, the only purpose of discussing it, is because policy is what voters look to when making their voting decisions. There are slim pickings this time round. People are looking at parties they wouldn't have even bothered looking at in the past, just to see if "maybe" their policies have merit, and warrant a vote.

TOP's do not.

Winston knows he won't be in a position to implement any meaningful policies, as I've already mentioned. He says a bunch of things that he knows will resonate with certain angry and befuddled voters, then when he gets over the threshold he settles down to enjoy the 'baubles of office'.

Anyone who actually believes that any of the minor parties will be in a position to implement a suite of policies that would reshape something as fundamental as the tax landscape is deluded.

[clearasmud]

Winston knows he won't be in a position to implement any meaningful policies, as I've already mentioned. He says a bunch of things that he knows will resonate with certain angry and befuddled voters, then when he gets over the threshold he settles down to enjoy the 'baubles of office'.

Anyone who actually believes that any of the minor parties will be in a position to implement a suite of policies that would reshape something as fundamental as the tax landscape is deluded.

Apparently NZF has some anti vaxxers candidates that will be happy on the opposition.

[Aaron]

[SIZE=3][FONT=arial]Yep, first $15,000 of income tax free but tax rate for anyone earning $15,000-$80,000 moves to 20%. Which, for those at the lower/middle of that income bracket, pretty much negates the "tax free" amount.

You going to vote for this? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I am unsure how you did your sums to come up with this statement even at $44,000 with the Independent Earner Tax Credit you are paying $400.00 less under TOP's policy.

As far as the land tax goes it is simple and hard to avoid so I like it. The rate is quite high at .75% my council rates currently work out at around .04% on GV and I think the rates in my area are higher than most. An across the board capital gains tax would be preferable but that can come in time. Their original equity tax was also pretty radical.

.75% works out at $6,750 on an average house valued at $900,000. Ideally you would want stage two to be implemented sooner so your UBI could cover the tax.

Stage two the flat tax of 35% sounds radical. FP would like this if it were 20%. The 35% rate also means that most of our UBI would have to go into paying taxes if we also have a job so it is not the crazy handout that we first thought it was.

Haven't done the numbers but like the sound of "progressive tax rates"

Interesting that Justakiwi and Daytr have come out against such progressive and fair minded policies. Not so easy being a liberal when it comes out of your own pocket but in justakiwi's case if your financial situation is as you have mentioned on this site this is the party for you.

A "radical centrist party" sounds like a conflict in terms.

Gareth Morgan was too arrogant or not smart enough to realise TOP would have a better chance if they focused on an electoral win and dragged a couple of extra MPs in with the party vote.

Hey Baa Baa what was TOPs party vote when Gareth first formed it?

I don't know what Raj Manji's chances are in Ilam and if he does not win a TOP vote could be a wasted vote as they do not appear to be able to get the 5% threshold.

I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives and any party looking to invest in young people once again is worth a go. You have to start somewhere.

Note to boomers National Superannuation will not be touched.

[Panda-NZ-]

What's the point of discussing all the things TOP will be implementing - when they don't have a hope in hell of getting any of it done?!

It does shows us their values though.

When I see Act's tax policy for instance I think ..what a mean bunch of people.

[Balance]

It does shows us their values though.

When I see Act's tax policy for instance I think ..what a mean bunch of people.

Tell us again how countries like Australia and France are wanting their societies to go back to the dark ages because they have banned mobiles from school.

panda-nz : resident ignoramus Labour indoctrinated shill and peasant.

[justakiwi]

Firstly, not everyone qualifies for IETC - if you are on any kind of income tested benefit, you do not qualify, even if you are also working (part time/casual or whatever). That is currently my situation as for health reasons I can only work up to 15 hours a week. I am currently doing casual caregiving shifts as available, which is taxed at secondary tax rates. And yes, I am receiving financial assistance from WINZ, so do not qualify for IETC. My total income will be well under $40,000 (more likely to be closer to $30,000).

Secondly, do you seriously think saving $400 a year is of any significance right now? That is $7.69/week - won't even buy you a dozen eggs.

As for the phase 2 flat tax rate of 35% - how the hell do you think that is going to benefit anyone on a low income?

I am sorry, but this is probably the last party that I would vote for, in terms of how it would/would not benefit me as an individual. Even if I was not receiving a benefit, and was still working 30 hours a week, I do not see how I would possibly be any better off than I would be right now. But feel free to explain it to me if you think I am wrong.

As for your last statement - this "I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives" is precisely the issue this time round. People are making voting decisions based solely on getting Labour out of government. In other words, they are "settling" for a party they do not actually want to vote for. Which makes a total farce of our political system as far as I am concerned. Voting for "the best out of a ****ty bunch" is not a good reason for voting for a party - regardless of which party it might be.





I am unsure how you did your sums to come up with this statement even at $44,000 with the Independent Earner Tax Credit you are paying $400.00 less under TOP's policy.

As far as the land tax goes it is simple and hard to avoid so I like it. The rate is quite high at .75% my council rates currently work out at around .04% on GV and I think the rates in my area are higher than most. An across the board capital gains tax would be preferable but that can come in time. Their original equity tax was also pretty radical.

.75% works out at $6,750 on an average house valued at $900,000. Ideally you would want stage two to be implemented sooner so your UBI could cover the tax.

Stage two the flat tax of 35% sounds radical. FP would like this if it were 20%. The 35% rate also means that most of our UBI would have to go into paying taxes if we also have a job so it is not the crazy handout that we first thought it was.

Haven't done the numbers but like the sound of "progressive tax rates"

Interesting that Justakiwi and Daytr have come out against such progressive and fair minded policies. Not so easy being a liberal when it comes out of your own pocket but in justakiwi's case if your financial situation is as you have mentioned on this site this is the party for you.

A "radical centrist party" sounds like a conflict in terms.

Gareth Morgan was too arrogant or not smart enough to realise TOP would have a better chance if they focused on an electoral win and dragged a couple of extra MPs in with the party vote.

Hey Baa Baa what was TOPs party vote when Gareth first formed it?

I don't know what Raj Manji's chances are in Ilam and if he does not win a TOP vote could be a wasted vote as they do not appear to be able to get the 5% threshold.

I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives and any party looking to invest in young people once again is worth a go. You have to start somewhere.

Note to boomers National Superannuation will not be touched.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Firstly, not everyone qualifies for IETC - if you are on any kind of income tested benefit, you do not qualify, even if you are also working (part time/casual or whatever). That is currently my situation as for health reasons I can only work up to 15 hours a week. I am currently doing casual caregiving shifts as available, which is taxed at secondary tax rates. And yes, I am receiving financial assistance from WINZ, so do not qualify for IETC. My total income will be well under $40,000 (more likely to be closer to $30,000).

Secondly, do you seriously think saving $400 a year is of any significance right now? That is $7.69/week - won't even buy you a dozen eggs.

As for the phase 2 flat tax rate of 35% - how the hell do you think that is going to benefit anyone on a low income?

I am sorry, but this is probably the last party that I would vote for, in terms of how it would/would not benefit me as an individual. Even if I was not receiving a benefit, and was still working 30 hours a week, I do not see how I would possibly be any better off than I would be right now. But feel free to explain it to me if you think I am wrong.

As for your last statement - this "I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives" is precisely the issue this time round. People are making voting decisions based solely on getting Labour out of government. In other words, they are "settling" for a party they do not actually want to vote for. Which makes a total farce of our political system as far as I am concerned. Voting for "the best out of a ****ty bunch" is not a good reason for voting for a party - regardless of which party it might be.

So you believe that, rather than vote for “the best out of a ****ty bunch”, people should just abstain from voting?

[Aaron]

Firstly, not everyone qualifies for IETC - if you are on any kind of income tested benefit, you do not qualify, even if you are also working (part time/casual or whatever). That is currently my situation as for health reasons I can only work up to 15 hours a week. I am currently doing casual caregiving shifts as available, which is taxed at secondary tax rates. And yes, I am receiving financial assistance from WINZ, so do not qualify for IETC. My total income will be well under $40,000 (more likely to be closer to $30,000).

Secondly, do you seriously think saving $400 a year is of any significance right now? That is $7.69/week - won't even buy you a dozen eggs.

As for the phase 2 flat tax rate of 35% - how the hell do you think that is going to benefit anyone on a low income?

I am sorry, but this is probably the last party that I would vote for, in terms of how it would/would not benefit me as an individual. Even if I was not receiving a benefit, and was still working 30 hours a week, I do not see how I would possibly be any better off than I would be right now. But feel free to explain it to me if you think I am wrong.

As for your last statement - this "I will probably vote for them anyway as I do not like the alternatives" is precisely the issue this time round. People are making voting decisions based solely on getting Labour out of government. In other words, they are "settling" for a party they do not actually want to vote for. Which makes a total farce of our political system as far as I am concerned. Voting for "the best out of a ****ty bunch" is not a good reason for voting for a party - regardless of which party it might be.

At $30k you will be paying $4,270 no IETC under TOP $3,000 or $1,270.00 less, check my numbers if you like.

With the 35% flat tax although circular in nature the $16,500 UBI will more than cover it. Not sure how this works in with welfare, not my area of interest.

The question you are asking is the same as all the ACT voters "what is in it for me". Sadly the waste we see in govt overides the good things being done, so I guess it is reasonable to ask whats in it for me when you see the head of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples lavishing a $40,000 leaving party on himself. That is criminal yet no one will be held accountable.

$8billion losses brought on by an irresponsible RBNZ. No one accountable just "noise" says Adrian.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/adrian-orr-dismisses-talk-about-central-banks-being-in-the-red-as-noise/UZO347ZVJNCSJPXNBXKV7QS7W4/

Personally rather than "what is in it for me" we should ask "what is best for NZ". There is no right answer but we can vote for the party we think has the best policy to answer question number two.

With everyone asking what's in it for me our politicians are pandering to selfish aholes and focus groups are setting policy. Not good in my opinion.

Obviously as I am a selfish ahole myself, if I were wealthier I suspect my political views might change.

[justakiwi]

Whatever. I have been transparent about my views of all the parties. I feel zero guilt for caring about my own well-being under any party. That does not mean I do not care about others (if you have read any of my posts here, you should know that is absolutely not the case). Nor does it mean I don't care about NZ as a whole. For your information, I am not a liberal. I sit pretty much in the middle.

So yeah, there most definitely is a consideration of "what's in it for me?" and I think it is a perfectly acceptable consideration.

Oh, and to answer your question "do you think people should just abstain?" - good question. The answer is no, as I have always voted, and will vote this time too. But unless something changes dramatically between now and the election, it will not be an easy or comfortable decision.

P.S. Their UBI plan has insufficient information currently - is it taxed? Does it apply to people on benefits or govt super? Does it automatically wipe out the advantage of the $15,000 non-taxable income? Too many unanswered questions, but as you said, its all a moot point anyway cause it 'aint gonna happen.


At $30k you will be paying $4,270 no IETC under TOP $3,000 or $1,270.00 less, check my numbers if you like.

With the 35% flat tax although circular in nature the $16,500 UBI will more than cover it. Not sure how this works in with welfare, not my area of interest.

The question you are asking is the same as all the ACT voters "what is in it for me". Sadly the waste we see in govt overides the good things being done, so I guess it is reasonable to ask whats in it for me when you see the head of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples lavishing a $40,000 leaving party on himself. That is criminal yet no one will be held accountable.

$8billion losses brought on by an irresponsible RBNZ. No one accountable just "noise" says Adrian.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/adrian-orr-dismisses-talk-about-central-banks-being-in-the-red-as-noise/UZO347ZVJNCSJPXNBXKV7QS7W4/

Personally rather than "what is in it for me" we should ask "what is best for NZ". There is no right answer but we can vote for the party we think has the best policy to answer question number two.

With everyone asking what's in it for me our politicians are pandering to selfish aholes and focus groups are setting policy. Not good in my opinion.

Obviously as I am a selfish ahole myself, if I were wealthier I suspect my political views might change.

[dln]

AFAIK the land tax is proposed on the value of the land only, not improvements.
This would appear to encourage intensification and discourage land banking, both good things.
The idea is to move the treatment of land along the spectrum from a speculative investment towards being a productive asset.

[dln]

The UBI scheme is intended as a substantial replacement for the welfare system (obviously with top-ups for those that can't work to supplement it).
The current system is punitive and invasive and a universal base, regardless of your living arrangements, relationship status etc, with the ability to work as much as you can to improve your lot without being financially punished for it, sounds like a good idea to me.

Clearly, this won't be happening in the next term or the one after even if TOP wins Ilam, but I think it would be a progressive set of ideas that would get a bit more air with the exposure a seat would bring.

I haven't done a deep dive into the numbers so won't judge the scheme as currently touted, but at least they are looking to the future and considering things that might improve the way our society operates.
The same old **** being trotted out by the existing representatives is looking increasingly unfit for purpose for the next 50 years.

The world has changed, our policies have not.

[Baa_Baa]

The UBI scheme is intended as a substantial replacement for the welfare system (obviously with top-ups for those that can't work to supplement it).
The current system is punitive and invasive and a universal base, regardless of your living arrangements, relationship status etc, with the ability to work as much as you can to improve your lot without being financially punished for it, sounds like a good idea to me.

Clearly, this won't be happening in the next term or the one after even if TOP wins Ilam, but I think it would be a progressive set of ideas that would get a bit more air with the exposure a seat would bring.

I haven't done a deep dive into the numbers so won't judge the scheme as currently touted, but at least they are looking to the future and considering things that might improve the way our society operates.
The same old **** being trotted out by the existing representatives is looking increasingly unfit for purpose for the next 50 years.

The world has changed, our policies have not.

Nice precise, whether one agrees or not, it’s a wasted vote. A vote for TOP won’t change a single thing, it’s an idealistic crusade destined for disappointment and decades of it, which even then may come to nothing.

[dln]

To be fair, a substantial proportion of votes are "wasted" and have no bearing on the outcome.
That's not an excuse for not voting or just voting for more sh1tf#ckery because they will win.

I haven't decided where mine's going yet, and most of the pitches to date have been very unimpressive.

[Aaron]

Thanks to dln I am wondering if there is enough time for me to buy a house in the Ilam electorate. Maybe I can just rent there for a couple of months before the election.

[fungus pudding]

To be fair, a substantial proportion of votes are "wasted" and have no bearing on the outcome.
That's not an excuse for not voting or just voting for more sh1tf#ckery because they will win.

I haven't decided where mine's going yet, and most of the pitches to date have been very unimpressive.

Translation:

A substantial proportion of votes are "wasted" and have no bearing on the outcome.
That's not an excuse for not voting or just voting for more sh1tf#ckery because they will win.

I haven't decided where mine's going yet, and most of the pitches to date have been very unimpressive.

[Logen Ninefingers]

As far as I can see, the prospect of a radical LABGREETEPATI coalition doesn’t bother the swinger voters, they are more concerned with combing through the policies of minor parties in great detail, trying to get excited over a bunch of things that will never be implemented - because the ‘majors’ will never let a minor wag the dog to that extent. Hey, but maybe Raf Manji can get over the threshold and partake in some baubles of office from one of the ‘majors’.

[justakiwi]

Instead of dissing people who are carefully looking at the policies of all parties that could possibly win at least one seat, how about giving those people some credit for doing their due diligence? You are making bucketloads of assumptions about swing voters, without knowing anything about us, and your arrogance is showing.

I do my due diligence when investing. I do the same when deciding who to vote for. It is what responsible voters do.


As far as I can see, the prospect of a radical LABGREETEPATI coalition doesn’t bother the swinger voters, they are more concerned with combing through the policies of minor parties in great detail, trying to get excited over a bunch of things that will never be implemented - because the ‘majors’ will never let a minor wag the dog to that extent. Hey, but maybe Raf Manji can get over the threshold and partake in some baubles of office from one of the ‘majors’.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Instead of dissing people who are carefully looking at the policies of all parties that could possibly win at least one seat, how about giving those people some credit for doing their due diligence? You are making bucketloads of assumptions about swing voters, without knowing anything about us, and your arrogance is showing.

I do my due diligence when investing. I do the same when deciding who to vote for. It is what responsible voters do.

You show little awareness of the political process. If you did due diligence on a penny dreadful with full awareness that they would be unable to implement the promises being made to shareholders, and still invested, then you’d be in line to lose bucketloads. What is ‘responsible’ about that?

[justakiwi]

As I said, your arrogance is showing.

Doing due diligence means doing your homework before making an important decision. You are assuming that anyone looking at the policies of minor parties, is automatically then going to vote for them. That is 100% not correct. I did my due diligence on at least two minor parties, did not like what I saw, so will not be giving them my vote. Pretty sure I'm not the only one who has done that.

Don't be such a dick.


You show little awareness of the political process. If you did due diligence on a penny dreadful with full awareness that they would be unable to implement the promises being made to shareholders, and still invested, then you’d be in line to lose bucketloads. What is ‘responsible’ about that?

[Daytr]

As far as I can see, the prospect of a radical LABGREETEPATI coalition doesn’t bother the swinger voters, they are more concerned with combing through the policies of minor parties in great detail, trying to get excited over a bunch of things that will never be implemented - because the ‘majors’ will never let a minor wag the dog to that extent. Hey, but maybe Raf Manji can get over the threshold and partake in some baubles of office from one of the ‘majors’.

Well I am a swing voter & I know many other swing voters and your summation is miles off track. Why would they be swing voters if they will only vote in one direction?
It appears you don't actually understand the concept of what a swing voter is.

They are policy driven not ideology driven and a centrist I.e they potentially could vote center left or center right.

But hey I've been called a Communist, Socialist, Labour puppet & Greenie on here & none of those labels are correct either.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Good on you ‘policy driven’ guys. Let’s discuss this further after the election after you vote on a ‘policy driven’ basis & we’ll see how the minor parties have fared and how many of their policies are set to be implemented by the new government. Let’s also see how many policies not disclosed to the electorate by the majors get implemented as well: stuff like ‘co-governance’, 3 Waters, and all the mega-mergers we’ve seen.

[Logen Ninefingers]

This stubborn fixation on ‘policies’ seems to me to indicate a certain arrogance and stubbornness and refusal to live in reality. There’s no handbook on how to vote and a view that the right way to vote is based on ones enthusiasm for pie-in-the-sky ‘policies’ is one point of view for sure, but certainly cannot be considered to be ‘the correct view’. It’s an outlook I would associate with wet-behind-the-ears younger voters, not with people who have quite a few elections under their belts.

[Daytr]

This stubborn fixation on ‘policies’ seems to me to indicate a certain arrogance and stubbornness and refusal to live in reality. There’s no handbook on how to vote and a view that the right way to vote is based on ones enthusiasm for pie-in-the-sky ‘policies’ is one point of view for sure, but certainly cannot be considered to be ‘the correct view’. It’s an outlook I would associate with wet-behind-the-ears younger voters, not with people who have quite a few elections under their belts.

Seriously! You are disparaging people for being discerning on policy. What are you going to come up with next. 🤣

Just because someone actually has a compass and votes according on policy it doesn't mean they are naive and believe every policy announcement.

As Labour won't be in Government next none of those policies will be implemented anyway.
But how about Nationals policy on foreign buyers? When are they going to come clean on that.

I still haven't made up my mind on who to vote for as there has been very little inspirational policy by any party.

[justakiwi]

Ok, sweet cheeks ... if we are not supposed to base our voting decisions on party policy, how bout you tell us exactly what we should base it on? Wtf else is there? Past performance? Future projections? Or maybe we just pick whichever party leader wears the smartest suits?



Good on you ‘policy driven’ guys. Let’s discuss this further after the election after you vote on a ‘policy driven’ basis & we’ll see how the minor parties have fared and how many of their policies are set to be implemented by the new government. Let’s also see how many policies not disclosed to the electorate by the majors get implemented as well: stuff like ‘co-governance’, 3 Waters, and all the mega-mergers we’ve seen.


This stubborn fixation on ‘policies’ seems to me to indicate a certain arrogance and stubbornness and refusal to live in reality. There’s no handbook on how to vote and a view that the right way to vote is based on ones enthusiasm for pie-in-the-sky ‘policies’ is one point of view for sure, but certainly cannot be considered to be ‘the correct view’. It’s an outlook I would associate with wet-behind-the-ears younger voters, not with people who have quite a few elections under their belts.

[fungus pudding]

Seriously! You are disparaging people for being discerning on policy. What are you going to come up with next. ��

Just because someone actually has a compass and votes according on policy it doesn't mean they are naive and believe every policy announcement.

As Labour won't be in Government next none of those policies will be implemented anyway.
But how about Nationals policy on foreign buyers? When are they going to come clean on that.

I still haven't made up my mind on who to vote for as there has been very little inspirational policy by any party.

Just use your vote in the most effective way against the party you think will do the most damage.

[Daytr]

Just use your vote in the most effective way against the party you think will do the most damage.

Yes voting tactically is quite likely the way it will go for me.

[justakiwi]

I get this, but it pisses me off royally, that our current political situation is forcing voters to “settle” for a party they do not support or want to vote for, purely to ensure the current Government they also don’t support or want to vote for - loses.

This is not how it should be and it makes a farce of democracy and NZ politics. I don’t know what the answer is, but something needs to change because we are stuck in a perpetual loop that we cannot get out of. We just keep on rinsing and repeating and achieving sweet Fanny Adams. Every time a new Government comes into power and reverses the previous government’s policies/decisions or whatever, it costs money, regardless of which party we are talking about. Our political system is ****ed.


Just use your vote in the most effective way against the party you think will do the most damage.

[Getty]

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.

Some get TOPped, but many don't.

[SBQ]

I get this, but it pisses me off royally, that our current political situation is forcing voters to “settle” for a party they do not support or want to vote for, purely to ensure the current Government they don’t support or want to vote for - loses.

This is not how it should be and it makes a farce of democracy and NZ politics. I don’t know what the answer is, but something needs to change because we are stuck in a perpetual loop that we cannot get out of. We just keep on rinsing and repeating and achieving sweet Fanny Adams. Every time a new Government comes into power and reverses the previous government’s policies/decisions or whatever, it costs money, regardless of which party we are talking about. Our political system is ****ed.

Why should you be annoyed that there's nothing current in the political parties that appeals to your interest? After all, consider all the voters that put the Labour Party in majority rule, hoping they would do the best for NZ. Instead, they did nothing, nor achieved anything they campaigned on. I would say that is the most disgraced outcome a political party can get. Your voters that vote for the policies you like the best, and they do NONE of it, and instead, impose policies where no one had a clue what was going on.

In the Parliamentary system, you vote for people in "hope" that they will place policies in that would align with your interests. This is very different to over in America where a change from Republican to Democrats (and vice versa) means an complete executive order to undo each party's policies.

Here's the real problem in NZ. In 10 years time everyone would have forgot what the Labour Party did and vote for them in power... time after time.

[justakiwi]

So you decide who you will vote for based on nothing more than "hope?" That is even more depressing than voting based on purely on policy.




In the Parliamentary system, you vote for people in "hope" that they will place policies in that would align with your interests. This is very different to over in America where a change from Republican to Democrats (and vice versa) means a complete executive order to undo each party's policies.

Of course they will. Just as people have already forgotten National's historical failings over time.


Here's the real problem in NZ. In 10 years time everyone would have forgot what the Labour Party did and vote for them in power... time after time.

The real problem is not people's selective memories. It is the fact that NZ has always had a two party system, which will clearly never change. Our choices as voters have always been limited. The fringe parties are nothing more than a distraction and a waste of votes for those gullible enough to vote for them. Parties like the Greens and NZF, have a small ability to disrupt the status quo, but their impact is minimal. ACT is clearly the only minor party currently with any clout, but a National/ACT coalition disturbs me greatly. I could be convinced to vote National right now, but a vote for National is a vote for that coalition.

Honestly, it puzzles me how complacent some of you are right now. I get that you want Labour gone. So do I now, but very few here seem even remotely interested in what the alternatives actually have to offer. You are settling without questioning, just to insure Labour loses.

[Daytr]

I get this, but it pisses me off royally, that our current political situation is forcing voters to “settle” for a party they do not support or want to vote for, purely to ensure the current Government they also don’t support or want to vote for - loses.

This is not how it should be and it makes a farce of democracy and NZ politics. I don’t know what the answer is, but something needs to change because we are stuck in a perpetual loop that we cannot get out of. We just keep on rinsing and repeating and achieving sweet Fanny Adams. Every time a new Government comes into power and reverses the previous government’s policies/decisions or whatever, it costs money, regardless of which party we are talking about. Our political system is ****ed.

I might yet vote for TOP, in fact they are the most likely candidate for my vote.
Whilst I don't agree with detail of some of their policies at least they are on the same trajectory.
They are also a party that wants to act on climate change which is a bottom line for me.

[justakiwi]

I respect your decision, but I think voting for any party that stands zero chance of winning a seat, is a wasted vote.



I might yet vote for TOP, in fact they are the most likely candidate for my vote.
Whilst I don't agree with detail of some of their policies at least they are on the same trajectory.
They are also a party that wants to act on climate change which is a bottom line for me.

[Baa_Baa]

I respect your decision, but I think voting for any party that stands zero chance of winning a seat, is a wasted vote.

Completely agree, I have no idea why anyone would knowingly waste their vote, it’s the same as not voting at all

[fungus pudding]

Completely agree, I have no idea why anyone would knowingly waste their vote, it’s the same as not voting at all

Yes and no. TOP have got no show of making it, but their leader, who oozes charisma and is obviously intelligent, belongs somewhere in politics. So voters who aren't hell bent on a favourite party, may want to encourage him. I can understand why some may want to do that.

[dln]

I respect your decision, but I think voting for any party that stands zero chance of winning a seat, is a wasted vote.

And adding 1 to the tally of a big party you don't like isn't?

[justakiwi]

I don't know. Right now, as I have said several times already, I have a dilemma. When I figure out how to resolve it I'll be sure to let you know.

Clearly many here are having a good laugh at me, but at least I am actually putting some thought into the situation. I take the vote that women fought really hard to get, very seriously. Maybe it is different for men, who have always had the privilege of voting, so take it for granted. I do not.


And adding 1 to the tally of a big party you don't like isn't?

[Baa_Baa]

Yes and no. TOP have got no show of making it, but their leader, who oozes charisma and is obviously intelligent, belongs somewhere in politics. So voters who aren't hell bent on a favourite party, may want to encourage him. I can understand why some may want to do that.

Even if he did get a seat in parliament, and into a coalition government it’s still a wasted vote as he would be unable to achieve a single thing.

Which major party do you think would align best with this party?

[dln]

@JAK Wasn't intended to sound disparaging.
I agree that our votes should be valued highly and I also think the current system settings diminish this for the reasons outlined by other posters.

The concept of 'wasted votes' is real, and reinforces the status quo effectively a two party, adversarial system - clearly by design.

Personally I think the 5% threshold is too high - I would be in favour of a level set to equate to 1 seat.

TOP got more votes in the last election, and is currently polling higher than Te Pati Maori.

[dln]

Even if he did get a seat in parliament, and into a coalition government it’s still a wasted vote as he would be unable to achieve a single thing.

Which major party do you think would align best with this party?

They have no intention of joining a coalition.

[Daytr]

I respect your decision, but I think voting for any party that stands zero chance of winning a seat, is a wasted vote.

I disagree. The only vote that is wasted is one that isn't cast. And a vote for a party if enough undecideds make that decision potentially could make a difference I.e they survive as a party and build momentum over the next three years.

[Daytr]

They have no intention of joining a coalition.

Maybe, maybe not but they could sit on the cross benches and guarantee supply.

The number is of their candidates with a doctorate is very impressive.

[Baa_Baa]

Maybe, maybe not but they could sit on the cross benches and guarantee supply.

The number is of their candidates with a doctorate is very impressive.

PhD’s don’t impress me, like career politicians either, it’s about real world experience and ability to get things done, we’ve seen six years of that lacking and the disasters it created

[Daytr]

PhD’s don’t impress me, like career politicians either, it’s about real world experience and ability to get things done, we’ve seen six years of that lacking and the disasters it created

That says more about you & quite a few others on here, than it does the top 1-2% of intelligence in the population.

I'm not saying experience doesn't count and as TOP aren't in Government they are all in the real world. I.e not in politics.

[Aaron]

I respect your decision, but I think voting for any party that stands zero chance of winning a seat, is a wasted vote.

"you must be the change you wish to see in the world" Ask Mahatma it worked for him eventually. Other than running for parliament voting TOP might be your best bet.

Ironic that someone called Baa Baa is encouraging us to follow the herd or should I say flock. TOP a potentially wasted vote no doubt but what are the options. National or Labour will lead the next govt and they represent more of the same no matter who gets in so does it matter that much. Just more annoying tinkering to placate the voters from those two parties.

P.s. the internet tells me this epic quote was not actually what Ghandi said I will leave it there anyway.

[justakiwi]

If I actually agreed with/supported any of TOP's policies/philosophies/principles, I would give them my vote. But I do not.

At this stage, I will probably end up voting National. I have zero support for ACT, and I am concerned about a National/ACT coalition - especially if ACT polls really well. If we must be stuck with a National/ACT government, which we obviously will be, I would prefer ACT's impact to be as minimal as possible.


"you must be the change you wish to see in the world" Ask Mahatma it worked for him eventually. Other than running for parliament voting TOP might be your best bet.

Ironic that someone called Baa Baa is encouraging us to follow the herd or should I say flock. TOP a potentially wasted vote no doubt but what are the options. National or Labour will lead the next govt and they represent more of the same no matter who gets in so does it matter that much. Just more annoying tinkering to placate the voters from those two parties.

P.s. the internet tells me this epic quote was not actually what Ghandi said I will leave it there anyway.

[Daytr]

If I actually agreed with/supported any of TOP's policies/philosophies/principles, I would give them my vote. But I do not.

At this stage, I will probably end up voting National. I have zero support for ACT, and I am concerned about a National/ACT coalition - especially if ACT polls really well. If we must be stuck with a National/ACT government, which we obviously will be, I would prefer ACT's impact to be as minimal as possible.

Each to their own of course, however, I cannot in all conscience endorse, even tactically, a party who does not believe in Climate Change.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Each to their own of course, however, I cannot in all conscience endorse, even tactically, a party who does not believe in Climate Change.

Which party would that be? Winston First?

[justakiwi]

I get that, and I agree that climate change is real. Whether National believes it or not, I do not know. While climate change initiatives are important, right now my focus is on other things. I love this country. I don't have any desire to live anywhere else, but I don't like the way things are going here, and I do not just mean with regards to Labour's failings. Both parties have let us down in the past, and right now, I cannot forgive either of them for ignoring the warnings about our aged care crisis. Some here would say the same about our health system etc. Both parties need to buck their ideas up and start working for the people instead of their egos. National needs to start thinking outside the square. When they become government they need to come at it from a new perspective. It is 2023. Things globally and nationally are vastly different than they were last time they were in government. No party can simply keep doing what they have always done - what they have always done, no longer works. We need some inspirational thinking, some outside the square problem solving, especially for housing. Other countries have already done this, so why are we so far behind the eight ball?

Voting purely on climate change issues is idealistic, and no doubt well intentioned, but it is not going to solve any of our current issues.


Each to their own of course, however, I cannot in all conscience endorse, even tactically, a party who does not believe in Climate Change.

[777]

Each to their own of course, however, I cannot in all conscience endorse, even tactically, a party who does not believe in Climate Change.

Please show us the source where National say they don't believe in climate change. I must have missed that.

[Daytr]

Which party would that be? Winston First?

I was referring to National, but ACT or NZF could easily fit the bill.

[Daytr]

Please show us the source where National say they don't believe in climate change. I must have missed that.

No you are right they haven't said it so it just displays their lack of integrity as it's plainly apparent through their policies that they either don't care or don't believe in Climate Change.

[Daytr]

I get that, and I agree that climate change is real. Whether National believes it or not, I do not know. While climate change initiatives are important, right now my focus is on other things. I love this country. I don't have any desire to live anywhere else, but I don't like the way things are going here, and I do not just mean with regards to Labour's failings. Both parties have let us down in the past, and right now, I cannot forgive either of them for ignoring the warnings about our aged care crisis. Some here would say the same about our health system etc. Both parties need to buck their ideas up and start working for the people instead of their egos. National needs to start thinking outside the square. When they become government they need to come at it from a new perspective. It is 2023. Things globally and nationally are vastly different than they were last time they were in government. No party can simply keep doing what they have always done - what they have always done, no longer works. We need some inspirational thinking, some outside the square problem solving, especially for housing. Other countries have already done this, so why are we so far behind the eight ball?

Voting purely on climate change issues is idealistic, and no doubt well intentioned, but it is not going to solve any of our current issues.

So Justakiwi, I'm confused. So from reading your post I cannot understand why you are voting National?

I'm not voting purely on Climate Change, but it is a bottom line for me. It's also a judgement on a party that if they don't believe in Climate Change what other scientific evidence will they ignore?

I think we are in a time where science is being challenged by ignorance from anybody being able to have a platform.

There are also health issues to consider and if we don't start looking after our waterways the nitrification is going to see cancer rates increase. We already have a lot of rivers that aren't swimmable. This reliance & influence on the Dairy industry needs to be neutered. Neither NACT or NZF will reign them in, in fact they are likely to allow reversion to things like winter grazing and other environmentally detrimental practices.

[Blue Skies]

Please show us the source where National say they don't believe in climate change. I must have missed that.



C'mon it's obvious & as just about everyone knows, although Chris Luxon says National are committed to us achieving Nett Zero Emissions by 2050 which by the way is enshrined in law, with National's short sighted policies there is no way we are going to meet this. They are going to take us backwards. ACT is even worse.

It's pure cynical politicking. There's a huge group of esp older selfish voters who don't want to face up to the hard reality, & prefer to just kick the can down the road.

Apart from the obvious problems this will breach some of our Free Trading Agreements, & seriously jeopardise our exports.
For example look at this warning from Tesco

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/130784599/tescos-warning-to-new-zealand-farmers

[Logen Ninefingers]

No you are right they haven't said it so it just displays their lack of integrity as it's plainly apparent through their policies that they either don't care or don't believe in Climate Change.


They haven’t said it. There, you’ve admitted it. And that displays your lack of integrity in coming here and making these types of false claims as part of your ongoing pro-Labour crusade.

[Logen Ninefingers]

C'mon it's obvious & as just about everyone knows, although Chris Luxon says National are committed to us achieving Nett Zero Emissions by 2050 which by the way is enshrined in law, with National's short sighted policies there is no way we are going to meet this. They are going to take us backwards. ACT is even worse.

It's pure cynical politicking. There's a huge group of esp older selfish voters who don't want to face up to the hard reality, & prefer to just kick the can down the road.

Apart from the obvious problems this will breach some of our Free Trading Agreements, & seriously jeopardise our exports.
For example look at this warning from Tesco

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/130784599/tescos-warning-to-new-zealand-farmers

China won’t be decreasing their emissions until (at least) 2030. So are you saying that the CCP don’t believe in climate change?

Imagine getting all worked up over substantially reducing 0.17% of the worlds emissions so we can “save the planet”.
0.17% is a rounding error!
God help Left wing idiots.

[justakiwi]

It is simple really. As I have already said, I take voting seriously. Women fought hard to earn the right to vote, so I'm never going to not vote. I have stated my reasons for not wishing to vote for TOP and NZF. I also stated I do not support ACT, so what's left? Labour, who as Balance has pointed out a zillion times, I voted for last time, but am now disappointed with. Which leaves National. For the most part, we are poles apart on pretty much everything, but there are one or two policies/aspecs of their overall philosophy, that I am OK with.

As far as your comments about the dairy industry go - best not go there with me. My son is a dairy farmer, and I am so tired of "townies" and others who have little real understanding of the industry, or exactly how much work our dairy farmers put into farming, in an environmentally friendly way. Our farmers (all of them, not just dairy) put food on our tables, money into our economy, and they deserve our support, not our never-ending condemnation. They also deserve better support from government - I'll let you guess which party that might be.

We have to find a balance between protecting the environment/climate change, and everything else. We are a very small country, and while we do need to do our part, whatever we manage to achieve is better than nothing, given that those achievements are but a small dot on the global landscape. But we need to be able to live our lives while we are doing it. Balance is what we need. Not, pie in the sky, extremist "green" projects that make us miserable and achieve bugger all.

So, while I understand why you are puzzled, believe me, I am just as "shocked" that voting National is something that is now, more than likely, my only option.



So Justakiwi, I'm confused. So from reading your post I cannot understand why you are voting National?

I'm not voting purely on Climate Change, but it is a bottom line for me. It's also a judgement on a party that if they don't believe in Climate Change what other scientific evidence will they ignore?

I think we are in a time where science is being challenged by ignorance from anybody being able to have a platform.

There are also health issues to consider and if we don't start looking after our waterways the nitrification is going to see cancer rates increase. We already have a lot of rivers that aren't swimmable. This reliance & influence on the Dairy industry needs to be neutered. Neither NACT or NZF will reign them in, in fact they are likely to allow reversion to things like winter grazing and other environmentally detrimental practices.

[Daytr]

They haven’t said it. There, you’ve admitted it. And that displays your lack of integrity in coming here and making these types of false claims as part of your ongoing pro-Labour crusade.

You really are a bore.

[Daytr]

It is simple really. As I have already said, I take voting seriously. Women fought hard to earn the right to vote, so I'm never going to not vote. I have stated my reasons for not wishing to vote for TOP and NZF. I also stated I do not support ACT, so what's left? Labour, who as Balance has pointed out a zillion times, I voted for last time, but am now disappointed with. Which leaves National. For the most part, we are poles apart on pretty much everything, but there are one or two policies/aspecs of their overall philosophy, that I am OK with.

As far as your comments about the dairy industry go - best not go there with me. My son is a dairy farmer, and I am so tired of "townies" and others who have little real understanding of the industry, or exactly how much work our dairy farmers put into farming, in an environmentally friendly way. Our farmers (all of them, not just dairy) put food on our tables, money into our economy, and they deserve our support, not our never-ending condemnation. They also deserve better support from government - I'll let you guess which party that might be.

We have to find a balance between protecting the environment/climate change, and everything else. We are a very small country, and while we do need to do our part, whatever we manage to achieve is better than nothing, given that those achievements are but a small dot on the global landscape. But we need to be able to live our lives while we are doing it. Balance is what we need. Not, pie in the sky, extremist "green" projects that make us miserable and achieve bugger all.

So, while I understand why you are puzzled, believe me, I am just as "shocked" that voting National is something I am finding myself more than likely, forced to do this time.

I'm not a townie. I live in a rural area and I am looking out the window right now at calves.

I don't hate farming or the dairy industry. But we have too many cows in NZ and our rivers and soils can't handle the intensity or shear number of cows. We produce five times the amount of dairy that we consume. Our rivers not long ago were swimmable and mostly drinkable. We need to get that back and fencing off riparian strips helps but it doesn't stop the runoff in heavy rain or the inundation of our water tables.

I know quite a few people who either don't know who to vote for or are voting away due to a process of elimination such as you are. I get it.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I'm not a townie. I live in a rural area and I am looking out the window right now at calves.

I don't hate farming or the dairy industry. But we have too many cows in NZ and our rivers and soils can't handle the intensity or shear number of cows. We produce five times the amount of dairy that we consume. Our rivers not long ago were swimmable and mostly drinkable. We need to get that back and fencing off riparian strips helps but it doesn't stop the runoff in heavy rain or the inundation of our water tables.

I know quite a few people who either don't know who to vote for or a voting away due to a process of elimination such as you are. I get it.

Repeating yourself, yet again.

[Daytr]

Repeating yourself, yet again.

And you are trolling.
Bye Logen Ninefingers you are not worth my time. Set to ignore to have some intelligent dialog.

[Logen Ninefingers]

So Justakiwi, I'm confused. So from reading your post I cannot understand why you are voting National?

I'm not voting purely on Climate Change, but it is a bottom line for me. It's also a judgement on a party that if they don't believe in Climate Change what other scientific evidence will they ignore?

I think we are in a time where science is being challenged by ignorance from anybody being able to have a platform.

There are also health issues to consider and if we don't start looking after our waterways the nitrification is going to see cancer rates increase. We already have a lot of rivers that aren't swimmable. This reliance & influence on the Dairy industry needs to be neutered. Neither NACT or NZF will reign them in, in fact they are likely to allow reversion to things like winter grazing and other environmentally detrimental practices.

‘So Justakiwi, I'm confused. So from reading your post I cannot understand why you are voting National?’

———

Your modus operandi here is to pretend to be some thoughtful neutral, when it is obvious that your agenda is to steer people away from the centre right towards your beloved Labour.

NZ is responsible for 0.17% of global emissions, and we produce more dairy products than we eat because EXPORTS.

[Daytr]

‘So Justakiwi, I'm confused. So from reading your post I cannot understand why you are voting National?’

———

Your modus operandi here is to pretend to be some thoughtful neutral, when it is obvious that your agenda is to steer people away from the centre right towards your beloved Labour.

NZ is responsible for 0.17% of global emissions, and we produce more dairy products than we eat because EXPORTS.

I don't pretend to be anyone, I am wh0 I am.

Is it literacy is your problem, or science?
Actually, I see you have issues with both.

And yet as I have recently stated I am probably voting for TOP. Go figure!

Haven't figured out how to set you to ignore yet so I will just have to be disciplined until I do.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I don't pretend to be anyone, I am wh0 I am.

Is it literacy is your problem, or science?
Actually, I see you have issues with both.

And yet as I have recently stated I am probably voting for TOP. Go figure!

Haven't figured out how to set you to ignore yet so I will just have to be disciplined until I do.

Have a cup of tea and a lie down, and daydream about how your vote for TOP will dramatically curb dairy cow numbers & ‘save the planet’ by cutting NZ’s 0.17% share of global emissions.

[Blue Skies]

Have a cup of tea and a lie down, and daydream about how your vote for TOP will dramatically curb dairy cow numbers & ‘save the planet’ by cutting NZ’s 0.17% share of global emissions.


With respect, that's a terrible attitude & example to set, just so irresponsible esp from a wealthy nation like NZ.


Will try & post a link but in case doesn't work here is quote from Rod Carr from Climate Change Commission destroying that argument.

" NZ is 0.06% of 1% of the world's population,
We emit 0.17% of global emissions, that's 3X our share of the worlds population.

Historically NZ is responsible for 0.3% of 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere emitted since the industrial revolution, that's 5X our share!

If we took ALL of our agriculture emissions OUT of our emissions profile, & left ALL of China's manufacturing emissions IN their profile, our emissions would still be TWICE theirs per capita.

We are among the richest nations in the world & we have access to technologies that should we choose to, we can reduce our emissions.
We can afford it & arguing that because we are little we won't make a difference, would mean every NZ'er who fought in any war, wasted their effort because clearly we were never going to make that much difference.

We need to do the right thing & role model for 100 small countries like us, that being little does not get you out of jail free.

But being little reassures others they too can take action.
And those 100 little countries emit one third of Global emissions."



https://mas.to/@greenpeace/110844298172030372

https://councillive.aucklandcouncil....tem-09-part-01 (https://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/video/110221-environment-climate-change-committee-item-09-part-01)

[Logen Ninefingers]

With respect, that's a terrible attitude & example to set, just so irresponsible esp from a wealthy nation like NZ.


Will try & post a link but in case doesn't work here is quote from Rod Carr from Climate Change Commission destroying that argument.

" NZ is 0.06% of 1% of the world's population,
We emit 0.17% of global emissions, that's 3X our share of the worlds population.

Historically NZ is responsible for 0.3% of 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere emitted since the industrial revolution, that's 5X our share!

If we took ALL of our agriculture emissions OUT of our emissions profile, & left ALL of China's manufacturing emissions IN their profile, our emissions would still be TWICE theirs per capita.

We are among the richest nations in the world & we have access to technologies that should we choose to, we can reduce our emissions.
We can afford it & arguing that because we are little we won't make a difference, would mean every NZ'er who fought in any war, wasted their effort because clearly we were never going to make that much difference.

We need to do the right thing & role model for 100 small countries like us, that being little does not get you out of jail free.

But being little reassures others they too can take action.
And those 100 little countries emit one third of Global emissions."



https://mas.to/@greenpeace/110844298172030372

https://councillive.aucklandcouncil....tem-09-part-01 (https://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/video/110221-environment-climate-change-committee-item-09-part-01)

Yes, NZ’s share of global emissions is 0.17%

0.17%

A small fraction of 1%

That’s minuscule!

Just minuscule!

[Logen Ninefingers]

Take a bow New Zealand, 82% of our electricity generation is from renewable sources! That’s extraordinary!

Meanwhile the worlds biggest polluter - China - will burn 2.3 billion tonnes of coal this year.

——

‘The electricity sector in New Zealand uses mainly renewable energy, such as hydropower, geothermal power and increasingly wind energy. As of 2019, 82% of electricity is generated from renewable sources, making New Zealand one of the countries with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.‘

[Logen Ninefingers]

India has 307.5 million cattle, which is 32.62% of the global total.

Brazil has 194.635 million cattle, which is 20.62% of the global total.

——

New Zealand has 9.965 million cattle, which is 1.06% of the global total. We have less cattle than Mexico. We have less cattle than Russia. We have less cattle than Uruguay.

——

There are more than 5 million ‘stray cattle’ in India, stray cattle wandering around, not being farmed in any way…just wandering around farting, belching, and defecating.

——

For more on India’s cattle, see here -

https://www.outlookindia.com/national/cow-welfare-in-india-rhetoric-and-reality-news-259177/amp

Cow Welfare In India: Rhetoric And Reality

Cows may be revered but remain ill-treated in India.

‘Cows possess a special human-animal bond in India because of their various important roles in farming, culture and religion. About two million years ago, the first members of a new genus of grazing animal, Bos, began to appear in northern India and established themselves as wild cattle or aurochs in India and central East Asia.

India has the largest cow population in the world. Around 142.11 million are indigenous. The crossbreed population account for 21 per cent of the total cattle in the country. To be precise, they are 50.42 million in number, as of 2019. Usually, the crossbreed fails to adapt to the Indian conditions and their average lifespan is also less than that of indigenous breeds. Even in the best farms of the country, crossbred varieties are only able to survive for 3.4 lactations as compared to 9-10 lactations for the indigenous varieties at the farmer’s level.

As a result, most end up as stray cattle. Indigenous cows produce healthy A2 beta-casein-enriched milk which is safe and healthy for consumption. The crossbreeding between Indian cows and European breeds like Holsteins Friesen and Jersey which are known generically as Bos Taurus has incorporated the A1 gene into the new species, leading to the unique formation of A1 beta-casein which is not healthy for human consumption in long run.

The village economy is self-sufficient and centred on ‘Goumatha- Cow’. Cows and their products have been extensively used by farmers as well as the common people of India. They serve as the source of income (through the sale of milk, ghee, curd, buttermilk, cheese, etc.), employment, social security (farmers sell their animals to pay debts), and transportation (for ploughing the field and carting). Of all the cow products the most valuable is milk. 209 million tonnes, an all-time high in milk production, has been recorded in 2020-21, of which more than half came from cows. On average, indigenous cows produce 3.34 kg of milk a day which serves as a source of nutrients for humans. Hence the consumption of milk is very wide across the nation.

Another product is cow dung is being used as manure/organic fertiliser, besides being used as manure. Approximately, 40-70 per cent of all manure produced by Indian cattle is used as fuel (biogas) for cooking. People of India also have cow-centric festivals such as Govardhan puja and Gopashtami that determine their love and faith towards them.

It is really unfortunate that the cow and its progeny which was the backbone of agriculture and village economy in ancient India, are of very limited use today. According to the livestock census data, there are more than 5 million stray cattle in India. Odisha tops the list with more than a million, followed by UP, Rajasthan, MP, West Bengal and Gujarat. Based on the Indian government data, stray animals caused many road accidents, leading to around 1130, 1425, and 1305 deaths of humans in 2018, 2019, 2020 respectively, all over India.

In urban areas, abandoned cows usually consume large quantities of indigestible and potentially toxic materials like plastic in their search for feed. The four-compartment cow stomach cannot expel these plastic bags, which remain trapped inside, rendering the animal unable to eat and slowly starving to death.

Another problem which arises after abandoning these cows is crop-raiding in the villages which leads to human-animal conflict which sometimes is aggravated on a big scale.

The main cause behind these outcomes is rapid urbanisation, mechanisation of farming operations, abandoning of cows by owners because of reduced production of milk products and fragmentation of pastures and grazing lands.
Many state governments have focused on spending on infrastructure for providing shelters to cows, which comprise gaushalas, shelters where abandoned, infertile, and chronically ill cows are sheltered by animal protection organisations and religious organisations. There are more than 5000 gaushalas and nearly 5 million street cows in India, according to a recent livestock census report [2019]. But the high stocking density, poor design of the stalls, and the flooring of the sheds, absent water points have raised an issue in this area.

Gaushalas often face inadequacy of skilled labour, financial constraints and a lack of veterinary support. They sometimes also suffer from malnutrition, further compounding pre-existing reproductive disorders, like anoestrous, repeat breeding, uterine infection, cervicitis, retention of the placenta, and mastitis.

The major challenges to cow welfare are shelter and space, fodder, health and medication, and proper utilization of animal resources. Several state governments and central ministries have taken initiatives for the welfare of cattle. Like the scheme, ‘Provision of Shelter House for Looking After Animals in Distress’ is being implemented through the Animal Welfare Board of India, under which NGOs and AWOs are given financial assistance to establish shelter houses. One such ministry is the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. This ministry has started the Rashtriya Gokul mission, National Livestock Mission, Livestock Health and Disease Control, the National Programme for dairy development, the Livestock census and Integrated Sample Survey, and several other schemes with the objective of cattle welfare in India.

However, the implementation of these need strict monitoring if we are to look after and rehabilitate cows. Till then, the cow remains more revered than responsibly cared for.‘

[justakiwi]

As I said, I fully accept that we need to do our bit, and we are. Already more than many countries are. Every little bit helps, but we do need to keep in mind that our contribution overall can only ever be minimal. That does not mean, do nothing. But it does mean, we should not focus solely on climate change/environmental issues. It should be a part of our overall future planning as a country, but it should not be our number one priority, over and above everything else.

People need homes, they need jobs, they need food to feed their families. We need power and telecommunications. We need practical, affordable transport opportunities. We need to be realistic about all of these issues. If people choose to drive an electric vehicle, that's great, but the vast majority of low/middle income Kiwis will never be in a position to buy or maintain one. Some of us have never owned a new car in our lives, never will, and don't even wish to. We buy secondhand cars that are already at least ten years old, often older, and we drive them into the ground, until they are close to packing up, before we replace them. We can't afford to do it any other way. Someone like me simply cannot afford to buy a used car that has a short life span - and by that, I am referring to EV batteries. No way in hell is a secondhand EV going to run for me for twenty years as my current car has. I cannot afford to be replacing an EV battery. So, for me, and many others, these vehicles are a cool concept with zero practicality for our particular situations. As for encouraging farmers to drive EVs - that is pie in the sky idealism, with no grounding in reality. If the government wants to gift my son one, no doubt he would use it, but I can guarantee it would not be fit for purpose, nor would it be a vehicle he could continue to use/drive for ten or more years.

In other words, as I have already said - governments need to find balance. Something Labour has not been able, or willing to do.

[Daytr]

As I said, I fully accept that we need to do our bit, and we are. Already more than many countries are. Every little bit helps, but we do need to keep in mind that our contribution overall can only ever be minimal. That does not mean, do nothing. But it does mean, we should not focus solely on climate change/environmental issues. It should be a part of our overall future planning as a country, but it should not be our number one priority, over and above everything else.

People need homes, they need jobs, they need food to feed their families. We need power and telecommunications. We need practical, affordable transport opportunities. We need to be realistic about all of these issues. If people choose to drive an electric vehicle, that's great, but the vast majority of low/middle income Kiwis will never be in a position to buy or maintain one. Some of us have never owned a new car in our lives, never will, and don't even wish to. We buy secondhand cars that are already at least ten years old, often older, and we drive them into the ground, until they are close to packing up, before we replace them. We can't afford to do it any other way. Someone like me simply cannot afford to buy a used car that has a short life span - and by that, I am referring to EV batteries. No way in hell is a secondhand EV going to run for me for twenty years as my current car has. I cannot afford to be replacing an EV battery. So, for me, and many others, these vehicles are a cool concept with zero practicality for our particular situations. As for encouraging farmers to drive EVs - that is pie in the sky idealism, with no grounding in reality. If the government wants to gift my son one, no doubt he would use it, but I can guarantee it would not be fit for purpose, nor would it be a vehicle he could continue to use/drive for ten or more years.

In other words, as I have already said - governments need to find balance. Something Labour has not been able, or willing to do.

Can't disagree with any of that.
EVs are new technology and the tech will improve rapidly and become cheaper and more reliable over time.

We can however reduce the number of cows we have for the sake of our fresh water & soils.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Maybe India could reduce some of their 5 million stray cows, which produce nothing of value? After that, perhaps they could have a crack at reducing their total herd of more than 300 million cows?

[justakiwi]

Ok, so what do you propose we do for my son and other dairy farmers if we do that? Who is going to compensate them for dropping their herd numbers and seriously reducing their income, without reducing their major costs? Do you expect them to just walk away from farming and their lives? Dairy farming is not the issue the media have portrayed it to be. Go talk to some responsible farmers and hear what they do on their farms to reduce the nitrate issue. There is so much propaganda and misinformation out there, it is ridiculous. Nobody ever bitches about market gardeners producing your vegetables and the effect on the land, water, and public health, that their chemicals create.

Im sorry, but you are wrong.


Can't disagree with any of that.
EVs are new technology and the tech will improve rapidly and become cheaper and more reliable over time.

We can however reduce the number of cows we have for the sake of our fresh water & soils.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Ok, so what do you propose we do for my son and other dairy farmers if we do that? Who is going to compensate them for dropping their herd numbers and seriously reducing their income, without reducing their major costs? Do you expect them to just walk away from farming and their lives? Dairy farming is not the issue the media have portrayed it to be. Go talk to some responsible farmers and hear what they do on their farms to reduce the nitrate issue. There is so much propaganda and misinformation out there, it is ridiculous. Nobody ever bitches about market gardeners producing your vegetables and the effect on the land, water, and public health, that their chemicals create.

Im sorry, but you are wrong.

Well said. There was a story on One News a couple of nights ago about how farmers are now immediately plowing paddocks and planting winter crops straight after intensive winter grazing, and this can dramatically reduce nitrogen leaching. Farmers are doing their part but it will never be enough for the rabid left wing anti-farming bloc.

[Daytr]

Ok, so what do you propose we do for my son and other dairy farmers if we do that? Who is going to compensate them for dropping their herd numbers and seriously reducing their income, without reducing their major costs? Do you expect them to just walk away from farming and their lives? Dairy farming is not the issue the media have portrayed it to be. Go talk to some responsible farmers and hear what they do on their farms to reduce the nitrate issue. There is so much propaganda and misinformation out there, it is ridiculous. Nobody ever bitches about market gardeners producing your vegetables and the effect on the land, water, and public health, that their chemicals create.

Im sorry, but you are wrong.

No I'm not wrong. Cattle & in particular dairy cows are the main contributor to the degradation of water & soil quality across the majority of NZ.

Their costs also need to reduce and intensification drives costs much higher to get every ounce of production that then drives land prices higher and the entire cycle just keeps repeating itself until we hits unsustainable levels which we have now exceeded.

Actually the opposite is true, the powerful lobby groups such as FED Farmers, Dairy NZ & NZ beef & lamb ensure that their industry is protected from wider scrutiny and that they are the only industry excluded from the carbon emissions.

I do believe farmers should be assisted to change their ways to become more sustainable, however nobody asked them to intensify their farms and increase numbers to unsustainable levels. Certainly no one gave them permission to poison our rivers. Times change and what was previously turned a blind eye to won't be in the future.
Water is everyone's to enjoy not just farmer's to pollute.

Perhaps the farmers are the ones that should be paying the compensation for polluting the rivers. If it was a chemical company they would probably have to pay for the clean up or a fine or at least cease and desist.

I understand this is personal you and it's probably difficult to hear, but it doesn't change the facts.

I talk to farmers all the time, generally they are great people and some if them are doing great things. Others not so much and some are darn right terrible in regards the way they treat their land, the waterways & their stock.

There is plenty of scope to cull the intensity as well as the bad eggs.

[justakiwi]

As I said in my first post, you really don't want to have this discussion with me.

I am "out" before I say something I'll regret.


No I'm not wrong. Cattle & in particular dairy cows are the main contributor to the degradation of water & soil quality across the majority of NZ.

Their costs also need to reduce and intensification drives costs much higher to get every ounce of production that then drives land prices higher and the entire cycle just keeps repeating itself until we hits unsustainable levels which we have now exceeded.

Actually the opposite is true, the powerful lobby groups such as FED Farmers, Dairy NZ & NZ beef & lamb ensure that their industry is protected from wider scrutiny and that they are the only industry excluded from the carbon emissions.

I do believe farmers should be assisted to change their ways to become more sustainable, however nobody asked them to intensify their farms and increase numbers to unsustainable levels. Certainly no one gave them permission to poison our rivers. Times change and what was previously turned a blind eye to won't be in the future.
Water is everyone's to enjoy not just farmer's to pollute.

Perhaps the farmers are the ones that should be paying the compensation for polluting the rivers. If it was a chemical company they would probably have to pay for the clean up or a fine or at least cease and desist.

I understand this is personal you and it's probably difficult to hear, but it doesn't change the facts.

I talk to farmers all the time, generally they are great people and some if them are doing great things. Others not so much and some are darn right terrible in regards the way they treat their land, the waterways & their stock.

There is plenty of scope to cull the intensity as well as the bad eggs.

[Daytr]

As I said in my first post, you really don't want to have this discussion with me.

I am "out" before I say something I'll regret.

Fair enough. All the best

[SBQ]

Take a bow New Zealand, 82% of our electricity generation is from renewable sources! That’s extraordinary!

Meanwhile the worlds biggest polluter - China - will burn 2.3 billion tonnes of coal this year.

——

‘The electricity sector in New Zealand uses mainly renewable energy, such as hydropower, geothermal power and increasingly wind energy. As of 2019, 82% of electricity is generated from renewable sources, making New Zealand one of the countries with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.‘

It's virtually impossible to get NZ to 100% renewable. At 82%, this is a very respectable figure but I believe wind generation would provide very little to the grid. What will push us to over 90% is getting more and more homes on solar PV. Even better with battery storage.

Now keeping with NZ Top - i'll agree with justakiwi that a vote for this party is a waste of a vote.

[Logen Ninefingers]

It's virtually impossible to get NZ to 100% renewable. At 82%, this is a very respectable figure but I believe wind generation would provide very little to the grid. What will push us to over 90% is getting more and more homes on solar PV. Even better with battery storage.

Now keeping with NZ Top - i'll agree with justakiwi that a vote for this party is a waste of a vote.

TOP are polling at 1% according to tonights One News poll. They are not even close.

(Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for 62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021).

[Panda-NZ-]

It's virtually impossible to get NZ to 100% renewable. At 82%, this is a very respectable figure but I believe wind generation would provide very little to the grid. What will push us to over 90% is getting more and more homes on solar PV. Even better with battery storage.

Now keeping with NZ Top - i'll agree with justakiwi that a vote for this party is a waste of a vote.

Or pumped hydro which labour is most supportive of (which is a nationwide battery).. though costs do need to be kept under control.

[SBQ]

Or pumped hydro which labour is most supportive of (which is a nationwide battery).. though costs do need to be kept under control.

In the province of BC (Canada's most western province), BC Hydro is building the Site C damn which initially had a budget cost of $6.6B, now it's currently at $16B. Lots of environmental protests from the First Nations, numerous tax payer funded assessments, the delays pushed the construction into cost over-runs. Lots of criticism in the build as noted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam

In my view, BC Hydro is planning for the future and despite how the critics say the electrical generation would be exported, they fail to believe that building reserve capacity prevents a crisis in the province. No more than ever, residents there can enjoy charging their EVs, building 500,000 homes in the next 50 years, and not be concerned that BC Hydro will lack the supply of electricity.

Unfortunately NZ does not have that kind of ambition. We have a strong Green Party (or those in gov't) that will squash any thought of building another dam (because their motive is to want people to live in tents and walk in the cold winter rain to work and back). Real solutions require big projects and BC's Site C dam is one of them.

[dln]

Have you been to Onslow?
No one will give a sh1t about that being flooded.

[Aaron]

Looks like my vote will be a wasted one. But as National and Labour won't touch capital gains tax, income testing national super or lower the inflation target to +-1% does it really matter.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/election-2023-national-way-ahead-in-ilam-denting-top-s-chances-of-entering-parliament/ar-AA1fUZNP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=351710926e544822b17767ccf2fbd381&ei=9

All the voters are after is how much will National offer them with their tax policy today, then they can go back to complaining about the underfunded health system and potholes.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Looks like my vote will be a wasted one. But as National and Labour won't touch capital gains tax, income testing national super or lower the inflation target to +-1% does it really matter.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/election-2023-national-way-ahead-in-ilam-denting-top-s-chances-of-entering-parliament/ar-AA1fUZNP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=351710926e544822b17767ccf2fbd381&ei=9

All the voters are after is how much will National offer them with their tax policy today, then they can go back to complaining about the underfunded health system and potholes.

I personally don’t think tax cuts are a great idea when we’ve got a revenue problem, whether it be tax cuts to GST on fruit and vegetables or whatever. We get these parties claiming they need to help people enduring a ‘cost of living crisis’, yet giving people more incentive and ability to spend only exacerbates inflation. Presumably *Labour* announce these kinds of tax cuts close to an election to get people to vote for them. The main reason we need more revenue at present is because of the huge reckless spending Robertson has presided over.

Interesting to see you banging on about the health system when the past 6 years have proven that the problem isn’t the vast amounts of money being thrown at it, it’s where the money is going that is the issue. Labour have squandered billions on mergers, extra bureaucrats, a new separatist ‘Maori Health Authority’….none of it has improved outcomes for New Zealanders. Likewise we’ve seen vast waste with the polytech mega-merger, the tv / radio merger that never went ahead, the Auckland cycle bridge that was never built, Auckland light rail that never proceeded and countless other bureaucratic boondoggles. Plus $500 million of expired RAT tests that now must be chucked away. All of this money would have paid for quite a few potholes to be fixed, I am sure. The Left see this vast waste and their response is “and now we must have a wealth tax”. Quite extraordinary really, they never hold Labour to account, just continue with the myopia they are known for.

[Aaron]

I personally don’t think tax cuts are a great idea when we’ve got a revenue problem, whether it be tax cuts to GST on fruit and vegetables or whatever. We get these parties claiming they need to help people enduring a ‘cost of living crisis’, yet giving people more incentive and ability to spend only exacerbates inflation. Presumably *Labour* announce these kinds of tax cuts close to an election to get people to vote for them. The main reason we need more revenue at present is because of the huge reckless spending Robertson has presided over.

Interesting to see you banging on about the health system when the past 6 years have proven that the problem isn’t the vast amounts of money being thrown at it, it’s where the money is going that is the issue. Labour have squandered billions on mergers, extra bureaucrats, a new separatist ‘Maori Health Authority’….none of it has improved outcomes for New Zealanders. Likewise we’ve seen vast waste with the polytech mega-merger, the tv / radio merger that never went ahead, the Auckland cycle bridge that was never built, Auckland light rail that never proceeded and countless other bureaucratic boondoggles. Plus $500 million of expired RAT tests that now must be chucked away. All of this money would have paid for quite a few potholes to be fixed, I am sure. The Left see this vast waste and their response is “and now we must have a wealth tax”. Quite extraordinary really, they never hold Labour to account, just continue with the myopia they are known for.

I would suggest the current polling would indicate at least some people are holding labour to account, that is what elections are for.

You might have hit on why Labour are not campaigning on their past successes.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I would suggest the current polling would indicate at least some people are holding labour to account, that is what elections are for.

You might have hit on why Labour are not campaigning on their past successes.

I don’t vote according to who will give me a tax cut. No doubt some people do. My main fear is what will happen after the election of a LABGREETEPATI government, as I think we will see a dystopian nightmare unfold over the ensuing 3 years, with extreme racial division, crime and society descending into a ‘Mad Max’ scenario, and a large scale ‘brain drain’ and capital flight. While others peruse policies with a hawk-like intensity and end up wasting their vote, I’ll vote simply to block the LABGREETEPATI nightmare from becoming a reality.

[fungus pudding]

I don’t vote according to who will give me a tax cut. No doubt some people do. My main fear is what will happen after the election of a LABGREETEPATI government, as I think we will see a dystopian nightmare unfold over the ensuing 3 years, with extreme racial division, crime and society descending into a ‘Mad Max’ scenario, and a large scale ‘brain drain’ and capital flight. While others peruse policies with a hawk-like intensity and end up wasting their vote, I’ll vote simply to block the LABGREETEPATI nightmare from becoming a reality.

As I do. Vote in the best way you can against the party who will do the most harm .

[whatsup]

Or pumped hydro which labour is most supportive of (which is a nationwide battery).. though costs do need to be kept under control.

In Aust pumped hydro has risen approx 18 x and the concept isnt fully built yet, just imagine what will happen in N Z with the usual out of control building practises !!!

[BlackPeter]

TOP are polling at 1% according to tonights One News poll. They are not even close.

(Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for 62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021).

TOP's plan is to win Ilam - and take whatever party votes they get with them into parliament. While I still think they have an uphill battle to face, its in my view not hopeless. Raf Manji used to be Lianne Dalziels financial hand in the Christchurch City Council, and he is well known in the area.

https://www.top.org.nz/raf-manji

[Logen Ninefingers]

TOP's plan is to win Ilam - and take whatever party votes they get with them into parliament. While I still think they have an uphill battle to face, its in my view not hopeless. Raf Manji used to be Lianne Dalziels financial hand in the Christchurch City Council, and he is well known in the area.

https://www.top.org.nz/raf-manji

I think Brownlee was a problem in Ilam last time around, for the electorate vote to go to Labour. Ilam is usually about as safe a National seat as you can get. Labour currently hold the seat and will be desperate to retain it, and I foresee that National voters will vote for the new National candidate who has no baggage.
I just can’t see where Manji’s votes will come from in the above scenario, I can really only see him coming a distant third….unless left wing voters abandon Pallett en masse for Manji, in which case he may come second.

[BlackPeter]

I think Brownlee was a problem in Ilam last time around, for the electorate vote to go to Labour. Ilam is usually about as safe a National seat as you can get. Labour currently hold the seat and will be desperate to retain it, and I foresee that National voters will vote for the new National candidate who has no baggage.
I just can’t see where Manji’s votes will come from in the above scenario, I can really only see him coming a distant third….unless left wing voters abandon Pallett en masse for Manji, in which case he may come second.

... which is a forcast not more or less worth than any opinion from any professional analyst (which we know, are always wrong); Remember, how many people predicted 6 weeks prior to the 2017 elections that Cindy will make it?

But independent from the value of any forecast with an agenda .... this says absolutely nothing about which party has the best program. And lets face it, always just going for the party we think creates the lesser damage is not really uplifting, isn't it?

Given that National and Labour did work over the last 3 decades or so hand in hand to run the country down (no matter whether we talk health services. education, public safety, infrastructure or even defence) would I wish somebody with fresh ideas all the luck they can get.

We can't just continue with National underfunding essential services (like education and health) when its their turn and Labour (when its their turn, like the last 6 years) just throwing money at them instead of fixing them, because they have no clue how to run projects.

National tried for decades to starve the essential services we have, and Labour did not know how to cure them when it was their turn.

Somehow it feels we need to change the approach.

Early days for my journey of discovery, but so far I like what I've seen from TOP:

https://www.top.org.nz/policy

Their main problem might be that they don't rattle the cage strong enough. Lets help them, shall we ;) ?

[BlackPeter]

... and they do have a health policy which even makes sense :) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHzseyYs3cI

Only NZ party I heard of looking into the causes for deteriorating public health.

[justakiwi]

Given that National and Labour did work over the last 3 decades or so hand in hand to run the country down (no matter whether we talk health services. education, public safety, infrastructure or even defence) would I wish somebody with fresh ideas all the luck they can get.

Exactly. People have very short memories, and while I fully agree that Labour has let us down, they did not create the current situation all by themselves. National contributed to it during their stints in government, and are also responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in.



Somehow it feels we need to change the approach.

Early days for my journey of discovery, but so far I like what I've seen from TOP:

https://www.top.org.nz/policy

Their main problem might be that they don't rattle the cage strong enough. Let's help them, shall we ;) ?

They have my attention.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Exactly. People have very short memories, and while I fully agree that Labour has let us down, they did not create the current situation all by themselves. National contributed to it during their stints in government, and are also responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in.




They have my attention.

At the end of the day, TOP are not going to get over 5%.

[iceman]

At the end of the day, TOP are not going to get over 5%.

Therefore are a wasted vote, whatever you think of their policies.

[BlackPeter]

... and actually - they are not a one trick pony. I think their housing policy makes a lot of sense:

https://www.top.org.nz/affordable-housing

I know, taxes are always unwelcome, but its hard to build a future if you don't invest.

What they propose is to put a (low) tax on the land value of urban properties (and reduce the income tax instead - i.e. for most people it will end up tax neutral or even positive). The outcome would be a better use of land, because several units on a certain piece of land would attract less tax per unit.

On top of that they want to enable councils to allow more land development by returning some of the collected taxes to them and at the same time require them to have a sufficient landbank to keep housing affordble.

Better use of the limited resources we have ...

[justakiwi]

I realise that, but you know what? Maybe it doesn't matter. I think there is a lot of truth in Black Peter's post and comments. We can't keep on doing the same thing we have always been doing. Maybe we need to start thinking outside the square. Maybe we need to move away from this thought process that we can't vote for a party unless they stand a chance of getting at least 5%. Maybe we should go ahead and vote for them - and if we all did that - maybe they would get over the threshold.




At the end of the day, TOP are not going to get over 5%.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I realise that, but you know what? Maybe it doesn't matter. I think there is a lot of truth in Black Peter's post and comments. We can't keep on doing the same thing we have always been doing. Maybe we need to start thinking outside the square. Maybe we need to move away from this thought process that we can't vote for a party unless they stand a chance of getting at least 5%. Maybe we should go ahead and vote for them - and if we all did that - maybe they would get over the threshold.

Well I don't think you have anything to lose in voting for them. At the end of the day you will have followed your convictions, and will have done what you think best. I know there are quite a few TOP fans out there, my son told me he was thinking of voting for TOP. At the end of the day, TOP will not get over 5% and we are not going to all wake up and decide to vote for TOP so that they get over the threshold. TOP is polling at about 1% with only a week to go until voting starts, it is nothing more than a simple statement of fact to say that they will not make 5% and above. But good luck to TOP and to all TOP supporters & voters.

[BlackPeter]

Therefore are a wasted vote, whatever you think of their policies.

Look - that's what they used to say about the Green Party as well. Sure - it took them some time, but look where they are now - and on the way they did help already the other parties to develop green policies.

Sure - TOP may or may not get this time into parliament (but I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam).

Important is for them and their ideas to get more public exposure ... and even if just the other parties steal some of their ideas, this would be of benefit, wouldn't it?

Personally I am getting sick of tactical voting - and just check, what the tactical voting did last time for the farmers.

I think its time to vote for whoever one thinks is best for the country ... and to be honest, while I am closer to National as to Labour - none of these parties did a lot of good if you measure them at their outcomes: A once outstanding health system is now in tatters, a once top of the OECD education system delivers now ways below average results, and both National (by underfunding it) as well as Labour (by politicising them and not understanding how to fix them) destroyed them together.

And ACT? Well, what their austerity policies would do to an already strained public service, look no further than the UK.

Which of these parties would you suggest we should vote for to give our education and health system the coup de grace? I personally prefer to vote instead for a party with ideas to improve the system instead of tactically voting for the pundit who might do the smaller aditional damage.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Look - that's what they used to say about the Green Party as well. Sure - it took them some time, but look where they are now - and on the way they did help already the other parties to develop green policies.

Sure - TOP may or may not get this time into parliament (but I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam).

Important is for them and their ideas to get more public exposure ... and even if just the other parties steal some of their ideas, this would be of benefit, wouldn't it?

Personally I am getting sick of tactical voting - and just check, what the tactical voting did last time for the farmers.

I think its time to vote for whoever one thinks is best for the country ... and to be honest, while I am closer to National as to Labour - none of these parties did a lot of good if you measure them at their outcomes: A once outstanding health system is now in tatters, a once top of the OECD education system delivers now ways below average results, and both National (by underfunding it) as well as Labour (by politicising them and not understanding how to fix them) destroyed them together.

And ACT? Well, what their austerity policies would do to an already strained public service, look no further than the UK.

Which of these parties would you suggest we should vote for to give our education and health system the coup de grace? I personally prefer to vote instead for a party with ideas to improve the system instead of tactically voting for the pundit who might do the smaller aditional damage.

The public service is 'strained' only in the sense that Labour has loaded it up with bureaucrats and communications staff and middle managers while we are still short of thousands of doctors and nurses. If thumb twiddlers have been hired to make-work positions then, I'm sorry, they have to go. Call that 'austerity' if you like but we won't become a prosperous nation by loading up on public servants.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Look - that's what they used to say about the Green Party as well. Sure - it took them some time, but look where they are now - and on the way they did help already the other parties to develop green policies.

Sure - TOP may or may not get this time into parliament (but I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam).

Important is for them and their ideas to get more public exposure ... and even if just the other parties steal some of their ideas, this would be of benefit, wouldn't it?

Personally I am getting sick of tactical voting - and just check, what the tactical voting did last time for the farmers.

I think its time to vote for whoever one thinks is best for the country ... and to be honest, while I am closer to National as to Labour - none of these parties did a lot of good if you measure them at their outcomes: A once outstanding health system is now in tatters, a once top of the OECD education system delivers now ways below average results, and both National (by underfunding it) as well as Labour (by politicising them and not understanding how to fix them) destroyed them together.

And ACT? Well, what their austerity policies would do to an already strained public service, look no further than the UK.

Which of these parties would you suggest we should vote for to give our education and health system the coup de grace? I personally prefer to vote instead for a party with ideas to improve the system instead of tactically voting for the pundit who might do the smaller aditional damage.

'I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam'

-----

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-national-way-ahead-in-ilam-denting-tops-chances-of-entering-parliament/E5XB2HN7NRDVVEB3J5LBO5NMYY/

[Daytr]

Look - that's what they used to say about the Green Party as well. Sure - it took them some time, but look where they are now - and on the way they did help already the other parties to develop green policies.

Sure - TOP may or may not get this time into parliament (but I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam).

Important is for them and their ideas to get more public exposure ... and even if just the other parties steal some of their ideas, this would be of benefit, wouldn't it?

Personally I am getting sick of tactical voting - and just check, what the tactical voting did last time for the farmers.

I think its time to vote for whoever one thinks is best for the country ... and to be honest, while I am closer to National as to Labour - none of these parties did a lot of good if you measure them at their outcomes: A once outstanding health system is now in tatters, a once top of the OECD education system delivers now ways below average results, and both National (by underfunding it) as well as Labour (by politicising them and not understanding how to fix them) destroyed them together.

And ACT? Well, what their austerity policies would do to an already strained public service, look no further than the UK.

Which of these parties would you suggest we should vote for to give our education and health system the coup de grace? I personally prefer to vote instead for a party with ideas to improve the system instead of tactically voting for the pundit who might do the smaller aditional damage.

Well said. I think we should all move to Ilam. 😅

[Logen Ninefingers]

Well said. I think we should all move to Ilam. ��

If you and BP move there, Manji will still come second or third. As to what 'we all' are doing as regards to our votes, check the poll for the details. Not many people going for TOP.

[justakiwi]

Maybe not, but ST is far from representative of the general voting population. Thank God.


Not many people going for TOP.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Maybe not, but ST is far from representative of the general voting population. Thank God.

Well TOP is over-represented in the poll numbers here, so bear that in mind. Out in the real world they are polling at approx 1% with a week to go until polling open.

[justakiwi]

You are missing the point Black Peter is making. For things to change, we need to think and do things differently. As he said, it took time for the Greens (and ACT for that matter) to gain supporters and eventually secure a place of influence in NZ politics. If all the greenies had just thrown in the towel on the premise that voting for the Greens was a wasted vote - the party would not be where it is now. That line of thinking has the potential to ensure NZ never gets anything different or better. It is time to stop with the boring strategic “vote for the party that will do the least damage” mantra. As I have repeatedly said, it does not sit well with me personally and I am feeling less and less inclined to compromise my own philosophies and values purely to vote a party out. It is nothing more than “settling” - and it achieves nothing over the long term. We just rinse and repeat ad infinitum. You may be happy to support that frustrating cycle of ineffective government, but I am not.

Black Peter’s posts today, have been thought provoking for me, so thanks BP.


Well TOP is over-represented in the poll numbers here, so bear that in mind. Out in the real world they are polling at approx 1% with a week to go until polling open.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You are missing the point Black Peter is making. For things to change, we need to think and do things differently. As he said, it took time for the Greens (and ACT for that matter) to gain supporters and eventually secure a place of influence in NZ politics. If all the greenies had just thrown in the towel on the premise that voting for the Greens was a wasted vote - the party would not be where it is now. That line of thinking has the potential to ensure NZ never gets anything different or better. It is time to stop with the boring strategic “vote for the party that will do the least damage” mantra. As I have repeatedly said, it does not sit well with me personally and I am feeling less and less inclined to compromise my own philosophies and values purely to vote a party out. It is nothing more than “settling” - and it achieves nothing over the long term. We just rinse and repeat ad infinitum. You may be happy to support that frustrating cycle of ineffective government, but I am not.

Black Peter’s posts today, have been thought provoking for me, so thanks BP.

'we need to think and do things differently.'

-------

Who is 'we'? I think for myself and so do all the people who voted in the poll. 'We' don't need to go for TOP or try a new party. And I don't think it's awesome that the Greens and Te Pati Maori are in Parliament, I think it is terrible that these radicals are in a position where they can drag New Zealand into being even more of a socialistic and divided hell-hole than it has become over 6 years of Labour.

[justakiwi]

I didn't say anyone should vote for TOP - that was not the point I was making. My comments about NZ as a whole (and NZ politics) needing to do things differently, applies to any minor party now or in the future, that is thinking outside the square and coming at it, from a fresh, and different perspective.

Do you honestly think that this perpetual back and forth between National and Labour, and their respective coalitions, is still working for NZ????

Really?


'we need to think and do things differently.'

-------

Who is 'we'? I think for myself and so do all the people who voted in the poll. 'We' don't need to go for TOP or try a new party. And I don't think it's awesome that the Greens and Te Pati Maori are in Parliament, I think it is terrible that these radicals are in a position where they can drag New Zealand into being even more of a socialistic and divided hell-hole than it has become over 6 years of Labour.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I didn't say anyone should vote for TOP - that was not the point I was making. My comments about NZ as a whole (and NZ politics) needing to do things differently, applies to any minor party now or in the future, that is thinking outside the square and coming at it, from a fresh, and different perspective.

Do you honestly think that this perpetual back and forth between National and Labour, and their respective coalitions, is still working for NZ????

Really?

So TOP will run the country & provide all the answers? Good luck with that. How are they going to go ‘from 0 to 100’ so to speak? The example of the Greens was provided earlier….they are over the threshold consistently but aren’t one of the major players, and can only be relevant if they go into coalition. It will be the same for TOP.
I prefer to live in reality.

[iceman]

I didn't say anyone should vote for TOP - that was not the point I was making. My comments about NZ as a whole (and NZ politics) needing to do things differently, applies to any minor party now or in the future, that is thinking outside the square and coming at it, from a fresh, and different perspective.

Do you honestly think that this perpetual back and forth between National and Labour, and their respective coalitions, is still working for NZ????

Really?

I don't think any right thinking person thinks it's working. So what is the solution ? First of all, 3 years terms are stupid. They should be minimum 4 years and more likely 5 years. That way a Government can actually get on with implementing their policies immediately after elections and hope they start making a difference before the next election. 3 years is pathetic. 1st year new Government is learning, 2nd year they try to implement the easy stuff, 3rd year they start making undeliverable election promises.

Second, I think our MMP is a complete failure and ensures we stay at the bottom of the heap like we are and have been for some time.

Third. I think the last 3 years have taught us that it is dangerous to vote in a majority Government without restrictions, when they can just ignore all their election promises and implement stuff they have never mentioned before the election. Switzerland with their voting on issues system, at least give some direct democracy and maybe that is something we need to look at to avoid a repeat of the last 3 years of an anti-Democracy Government.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I don't think any right thinking person thinks it's working. So what is the solution ? First of all, 3 years terms are stupid. They should be minimum 4 years and more likely 5 years. That way a Government can actually get on with implementing their policies immediately after elections and hope they start making a difference before the next election. 3 years is pathetic. 1st year new Government is learning, 2nd year they try to implement the easy stuff, 3rd year they start making undeliverable election promises.

Second, I think our MMP is a complete failure and ensures we stay at the bottom of the heap like we are and have been for some time.

Third. I think the last 3 years have taught us that it is dangerous to vote in a majority Government without restrictions, when they can just ignore all their election promises and implement stuff they have never mentioned before the election. Switzerland with their voting on issues system, at least give some direct democracy and maybe that is something we need to look at to avoid a repeat of the last 3 years of an anti-Democracy Government.

All good points. The populace lost it’s collective mind in 2020. We are now dealing with the mess.

[Daytr]

You are missing the point Black Peter is making. For things to change, we need to think and do things differently. As he said, it took time for the Greens (and ACT for that matter) to gain supporters and eventually secure a place of influence in NZ politics. If all the greenies had just thrown in the towel on the premise that voting for the Greens was a wasted vote - the party would not be where it is now. That line of thinking has the potential to ensure NZ never gets anything different or better. It is time to stop with the boring strategic “vote for the party that will do the least damage” mantra. As I have repeatedly said, it does not sit well with me personally and I am feeling less and less inclined to compromise my own philosophies and values purely to vote a party out. It is nothing more than “settling” - and it achieves nothing over the long term. We just rinse and repeat ad infinitum. You may be happy to support that frustrating cycle of ineffective government, but I am not.

Black Peter’s posts today, have been thought provoking for me, so thanks BP.

Again well said & agree.

[Getty]

This Top outfit must have a big advertising budget.

They are everywhere, including on the bottom right hand side of the Share Trader pages!

[BlackPeter]

The public service is 'strained' only in the sense that Labour has loaded it up with bureaucrats and communications staff and middle managers while we are still short of thousands of doctors and nurses. If thumb twiddlers have been hired to make-work positions then, I'm sorry, they have to go. Call that 'austerity' if you like but we won't become a prosperous nation by loading up on public servants.

I agree with you that Labour hired a lot of quite useless policy analysts and communication staff. They didn't even help Labour to stay in power (well, here is hoping). I was talking about the health sector - and they are absolutely at breaking point, look into any emergency department or even GP practise around the country, and I was talking about education going down the drain. If you want to see other services at breaking point - start to count the potholes on our roads :) ;

Admittedly - with education it is more a politcial issue. National underfunded them big time (and I used to sit during that time in a board of trustees - I know what I am saying) and Labour threw money at teachers to make their union buddies happy and added a lot of additinal tasks which don't improve our childrens education - but they didn't do anything to make the teaching job easier. None of them did help to improve our education standards - actually, Laobur further reduced them.

So, yes, we agree that Labour did over the last year a lot of wasteful and useless spending, but so did National before (read the "billion dollar bonfire" I was referring to). Does not mean that we can now afford to just underfund education, health and other frontline services (as ACT seems to plan) and expect things will get better. We do have thanks to Labour and National a pretty run down public system, and we need to invest into our future if we want to have a future worthwhile looking forward to.

[BlackPeter]

I don't think any right thinking person thinks it's working. So what is the solution ? First of all, 3 years terms are stupid. They should be minimum 4 years and more likely 5 years. That way a Government can actually get on with implementing their policies immediately after elections and hope they start making a difference before the next election. 3 years is pathetic. 1st year new Government is learning, 2nd year they try to implement the easy stuff, 3rd year they start making undeliverable election promises.

Second, I think our MMP is a complete failure and ensures we stay at the bottom of the heap like we are and have been for some time.

Third. I think the last 3 years have taught us that it is dangerous to vote in a majority Government without restrictions, when they can just ignore all their election promises and implement stuff they have never mentioned before the election. Switzerland with their voting on issues system, at least give some direct democracy and maybe that is something we need to look at to avoid a repeat of the last 3 years of an anti-Democracy Government.

Just a couple of observations:

Germany is running MMP since something like 1948 (actually - NZ adapted it from them), and despite some dawbacks I think that MMP did help them quite well to avoid the politcial catastrophies the US (with the wannebe dictator Trump) or the UK (with the clown and liar Boris Johnson) had in recent times. MMP clearly did help Germany to stay politically on the top of the heap, so - what is wrong with us?

I agree that a 3 years term is short time, note however that all countries with longer election periods (I am aware of) have some "interim elections" (like another house, regional elections or senate / house) which help the party in power to see whether the people like what they do. No issue with me to extend the NZ term to 4 years, but I think in that case we would need as well some political interim elections (which we currently don't have - local government does not count - no split along party lines).

Ah yes - and referring to your last point - NZ clearly needs a constitution limiting the currently unchecked powers of parliament ... and a second house might help as well to balance this power as well as allow a longer election term (see above).

[Azz]

Germany is running MMP since something like 1948 (actually - NZ adapted it from them), and despite some dawbacks I think that MMP did help them quite well to avoid the politcial catastrophies the US (with the wannebe dictator Trump) or the UK (with the clown and liar Boris Johnson) had in recent times. MMP clearly did help Germany to stay politically on the top of the heap, so - what is wrong with us?

What absolute ignorance. The US political system is considerably older than Germany's, and helped build the most prosperous nation on Earth. You don't like Trump so therefore Germany's political system is better? That is completely ridiculous.

[Logen Ninefingers]

In Germany under MMP, the people vote and then the negotiations start. Nobody is ruled in or out prior to the election.

In New Zealand under MMP, prior to the election the media hound the political parties to declare who they will and will not work with.

[iceman]

In Germany under MMP, the people vote and then the negotiations start. Nobody is ruled in or out prior to the election.

In New Zealand under MMP, prior to the election the media hound the political parties to declare who they will and will not work with.

I blame the Greens a lot for the sad state of affairs with our MMP not working as it should. Instead of being a far left socialist party, we need a centrist environmental party that can go either Left or Right in coalitions and get real results for the environment.
Sadly the NZ voting public doesn't demand it.

[Daytr]

I blame the Greens a lot for the sad state of affairs with our MMP not working as it should. Instead of being a far left socialist party, we need a centrist environmental party that can go either Left or Right in coalitions and get real results for the environment.
Sadly the NZ voting public doesn't demand it.

Yes, something I have been saying for some time. Australia has the Teals.
TOP would be the closest fit to a centrist party with an environmental conscience.

[BlackPeter]

Well TOP is over-represented in the poll numbers here, so bear that in mind. Out in the real world they are polling at approx 1% with a week to go until polling open.

Not quite true.

Just looked on businessdesk through this years poll results (sorry, paywalled) - and TOP came out in a number of recent polls with 2, 3 or even 4%. Add to that the margin of error of 3% (and sure, this can go the other ways as well) - so, yes, they are the underdog ... but it is well possible they make it.

Not sure as well whats the point of this negativity. Changing things is always hard, but should we really keep sticking in this messy cycle of always just picking the smaller evil instead of looking for a good solution? Procrastination vs progress?

And for whatever it is worth - NZ is currently in a phase of both big parties moving towards its extremes (sort of in sync with the rest of the world). Nothing good can come out of that, given that real progress can only happen with a support of the majority of people (and the majority is not extreme). So - we do need a liberal party back in parliament to keep both National and Labour honest and bring them back to the discussion table to find and agree on solutions for our future.

Remember: Only solutions drafted and carried by a majority of the people will survive the next election. Neither Labour / Green / Maori nor National / ACT / Winston First will be able to shape our future in a sustained and sustainable way. So - you need either a center right majority or a center left majority. We need again a party in our parliament representing the Center!

Ah yes - and we need to invest into our future, not strangle it applying some ill perceived austerity policy (and I would see no other way to fund ACT's and Nationals tax promises, unless they want to pop up debts).

[BlackPeter]

In Germany under MMP, the people vote and then the negotiations start. Nobody is ruled in or out prior to the election.

In New Zealand under MMP, prior to the election the media hound the political parties to declare who they will and will not work with.

That's (in general) correct. Exception is the AfD (maybe best described as a mixture between a German NZF and some NeoNazi groups) - the democratic parties don't want to work with them and say that beforehand.

But yes, I agree - MMP makes a lot more sense if every party competes based on their program and if they try after the elections to form a coalition with whoever allows them to implement more of their program.

The NZ version, where (many) smaller parties seem to understand themselves only as fanclub for either National (ACT) or Labour (Green, Te Pati) instead of trying to implement their own program with whoever they can, makes less sense.

However - there is no rule in the NZ electoral system which requires parties to commit prior to the elections with whom they will go. The problem is not the MMP system, the problem is that many NZ politicians (and journalists) seem to wear blinkers and only seem to be able to think in camps. Everything else is too complicated, you see? The result is that parties are not pushing to best implement their own program, but they just prioritize supporting one of the big parties.

Neither ACT nor Green (nor Te Pati, I think) are really independent parties. ACT is a right wing appendix to National and the so called GREEN Party (bad name, they should call themselves LEFT) is just a left-wing appendix to Labour.

So, yes - practically NZ got so far mainly stuck with a FPP system. Vote Labour or National and yes, make them a bit more or less extreme by voting either the big party or the more extreme appendix. But again, this is neither the problem nor the fault of MMP - It is just something which seems to be stuck in the minds of too many politicians. Maybe they can't think further than Left or Right?

Time for a real liberal (not liberitarian!) party in the Center! Ever considered voting for TOP :) ?

[BlackPeter]

I blame the Greens a lot for the sad state of affairs with our MMP not working as it should. Instead of being a far left socialist party, we need a centrist environmental party that can go either Left or Right in coalitions and get real results for the environment.
Sadly the NZ voting public doesn't demand it.

Absolutely - I think the problem is that at some stage the NZ communist party merged with the NZ Greens - and basically consumed them.

What the NZ Greens do is not Green politics, it is just very Left-wing politics sprinkled with a bit of Green. They are basically competing under the wrong banner.

In other countries (e.g. Germany) is the Green Party able to form coalitions with both Centre Left as well as with Centre Right Parties - and pushing their Green agenda this way very successfully. In some German states did the Greens even managed to take the leading position in coalitions (including taking the head of state role) - sometimes with the left and sometimes with the right.

Good environmentally conscious people instead of ideological one-sided idiots like they are in NZ.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Not quite true.

Just looked on businessdesk through this years poll results (sorry, paywalled) - and TOP came out in a number of recent polls with 2, 3 or even 4%. Add to that the margin of error of 3% (and sure, this can go the other ways as well) - so, yes, they are the underdog ... but it is well possible they make it.

Not sure as well whats the point of this negativity. Changing things is always hard, but should we really keep sticking in this messy cycle of always just picking the smaller evil instead of looking for a good solution? Procrastination vs progress?

And for whatever it is worth - NZ is currently in a phase of both big parties moving towards its extremes (sort of in sync with the rest of the world). Nothing good can come out of that, given that real progress can only happen with a support of the majority of people (and the majority is not extreme). So - we do need a liberal party back in parliament to keep both National and Labour honest and bring them back to the discussion table to find and agree on solutions for our future.

Remember: Only solutions drafted and carried by a majority of the people will survive the next election. Neither Labour / Green / Maori nor National / ACT / Winston First will be able to shape our future in a sustained and sustainable way. So - you need either a center right majority or a center left majority. We need again a party in our parliament representing the Center!

Ah yes - and we need to invest into our future, not strangle it applying some ill perceived austerity policy (and I would see no other way to fund ACT's and Nationals tax promises, unless they want to pop up debts).

I appreciate your strenuous appeals on behalf of TOP, but whether they represent ‘good solutions’ and / or ‘progress’ is a matter for debate. At the end of the day they are just another bunch of politicians. Manji is a blow-in from the UK who has been on the Christchurch City Council. He is a career politician.
My son has gone through their policies and told me he was looking closely at voting for them. He did remark that they seem to be intensely focussed on Christchurch, and indeed you can see that on their website -

‘The Christchurch Plan
——————————
We will invest in New Zealand’s second biggest city to ensure Christchurch is a vibrant and sustainable city for generations to come.’

This is obvious pork-barrelling IMO. Manji has a big profile in Christchurch and is trying to win the Christchurch electorate of Ilam.

[justakiwi]

So it is perfectly acceptable for National (in particular) to focus on Auckland, but when another party recognises that the South Island has been short changed for years, that is just "pork barrelling?"

Have you been to Christchurch lately? Have you seen the inner city area with multiple abandoned earthquake damaged buildings, streets that still have container protection walls in place, and areas that appear to have simply been forgotten?


I appreciate your strenuous appeals on behalf of TOP, but whether they represent ‘good solutions’ and / or ‘progress’ is a matter for debate. At the end of the day they are just another bunch of politicians. Manji is a blow-in from the UK who has been on the Christchurch City Council. He is a career politician.
My son has gone through their policies and told me he was looking closely at voting for them. He did remark that they seem to be intensely focussed on Christchurch, and indeed you can see that on their website -

‘The Christchurch Plan
——————————
We will invest in New Zealand’s second biggest city to ensure Christchurch is a vibrant and sustainable city for generations to come.’

This is obvious pork-barrelling IMO. Manji has a big profile in Christchurch and is trying to win the Christchurch electorate of Ilam.

[BlackPeter]

I appreciate your strenuous appeals on behalf of TOP, but whether they represent ‘good solutions’ and / or ‘progress’ is a matter for debate. At the end of the day they are just another bunch of politicians. Manji is a blow-in from the UK who has been on the Christchurch City Council. He is a career politician.
My son has gone through their policies and told me he was looking closely at voting for them. He did remark that they seem to be intensely focussed on Christchurch, and indeed you can see that on their website -

‘The Christchurch Plan
——————————
We will invest in New Zealand’s second biggest city to ensure Christchurch is a vibrant and sustainable city for generations to come.’

This is obvious pork-barrelling IMO. Manji has a big profile in Christchurch and is trying to win the Christchurch electorate of Ilam.

Not sure I can follow. Given that Manji stands for a Christchurch electorate (Ilam), he might be forgiven that his focus is as well on Christchurch, isn't it?

TOP has other candidates in other parts of the country as well (just check their website: https://www.top.org.nz/candidates ), and I expect these as well to focus not just on TOP policies, but as well on their respective electorates. Wouldn't you?

That would be what any directly elected MP would need to do.

[Logen Ninefingers]

So it is perfectly acceptable for National (in particular) to focus on Auckland, but when another party recognises that the South Island has been short changed for years, that is just "pork barrelling?"

Have you been to Christchurch lately? Have you seen the inner city area with multiple abandoned earthquake damaged buildings, streets that still have container protection walls in place, and areas that appear to have simply been forgotten?

Good oh. I would have thought that was within the purview of Christchurch City Council. Differences of opinion are still allowed on this site I hope. Apologies for not pledging my undying allegiance to ‘TOP’.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Not sure I can follow. Given that Manji stands for a Christchurch electorate (Ilam), he might be forgiven that his focus is as well on Christchurch, isn't it?

TOP has other candidates in other parts of the country as well (just check their website: https://www.top.org.nz/candidates ), and I expect these as well to focus not just on TOP policies, but as well on their respective electorates. Wouldn't you?

That would be what any directly elected MP would need to do.

No, I don’t expect the main party website to detail a list of financial hand-outs to be dished out per electorate. I think the country wins as a whole when central government delivers suites of policies targeted at all New Zealanders, and not just in electorates that certain MP’s are trying to win.

Also from the ‘TOP’ website -

‘The Christchurch Plan
——————————

The Opportunities Party (TOP) is proposing a $1 billion investment package for Christchurch to address some of the critical challenges still facing us, and to deliver a vibrant and sustainable city for generations to come.

TOP leader and Ilam candidate Raf Manji spent six years as the Christchurch City Council’s “money man” and believes a suite of investments are needed to complete the rebuild program and deliver key services residents can be proud of.

These investments focus on healthcare, transport, policing, heritage and education. TOP also has policy proposals for how we manage water services and urban planning.’

[Logen Ninefingers]

More on TOP’s intense focus on Christchurch below. Interesting that the party literature refers to it as ‘our city’. I guess it is if you live there, not so much if you live in Whangarei or New Plymouth.

—————

‘What TOP proposes

We have a vision for a world-class Christchurch and Raf Manji wants to help deliver it.

Our investment proposals include:

A new South Island Cancer Center and Laboratory ($580m)
A new Mental Health and Trauma Center ($20m)
Shift to a Zero Emission Urban Bus Fleet by 2030 ($130m)
Roading and Footpath Repair Fund ($70m)
Hospital Car Parking ($30m)
150 new Community Constables ($45m)
10 new Police Kiosks ($5m)
A new South Island Police Training College ($40m)
Christchurch Cathedral and Arts Centre Repair Fund ($40m)
A new Primary/Secondary School ($40m)

The Christchurch Pitch is all about making sure our city gets the attention - and investment - it needs and deserves.’

[justakiwi]

You just don't get it do you. It's not about TOP - it is the way you respond to people's posts, and immediately poo hoo anything they might raise about a party other than the one you support. I am currently still an "undecided" - we will see what the next two weeks bring. But Black Peter has raised some very good points in his last few posts, and I agree with him. It is time to do things differently, and find some decent alternatives to the status quo of politics in this country. This constant compromising and settling for a party that doesn't fully meet one's needs, purely to force a change in government, isn't working, and makes a bit of a mockery of the whole system. We should be voting for a party we like.​ Not just not-voting for one we don't.


Good oh. I would have thought that was within the purview of Christchurch City Council. Differences of opinion are still allowed on this site I hope. Apologies for not pledging my undying allegiance to ‘TOP’.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You just don't get it do you. It's not about TOP - it is the way you respond to people's posts, and immediately poo hoo anything they might raise about a party other than the one you support. I am currently still an "undecided" - we will see what the next two weeks bring. But Black Peter has raised some very good points in his last few posts, and I agree with him. It is time to do things differently, and find some decent alternatives to the status quo of politics in this country. This constant compromising and settling for a party that doesn't fully meet one's needs, purely to force a change in government, isn't working, and makes a bit of a mockery of the whole system. We should be voting for a party we like.​ Not just not-voting for one we don't.

I’m not ‘poo hooing’ anything, I’ve provided more actual information about ‘TOP’ than has been conveyed in weeks. I’m someone who actually does the research & debunks the myths. You can state all you like that there is definitely no pork barrelling going on & you can keep your rose-tinted glasses on if you like, I have no issue with it. Fair enough that you’d quite like to vote for something ‘newish’.

[Azz]

I’m not ‘poo hooing’ anything, I’ve provided more actual information about ‘TOP’ than has been conveyed in weeks. I’m someone who actually does the research & debunks the myths. You can state all you like that there is definitely no pork barrelling going on & you can keep your rose-tinted glasses on if you like, I have no issue with it.

You're kind of both right. There is a bit of pork-barrel going on. But we do have constituencies, and someone running in one can back things of note for that constituency.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You're kind of both right. There is a bit of pork-barrel going on. But we do have constituencies, and someone running in one can back things of note for that constituency.

Yeah, no doubt about that. Although Manji is the party leader & he is the one proposing to shower $1 Billion of taxpayer funds on his home patch. I wonder if ‘TOP’ got over the threshold whether ‘The Christchurch Plan’ would be their bottom line in any coalition negotiations?

[Azz]

Yeah, no doubt about that. Although Manji is the party leader & he is the one proposing to shower $1 Billion of taxpayer funds on his home patch. I wonder if ‘TOP’ got over the threshold whether ‘The Christchurch Plan’ would be their bottom line in any coalition negotiations?

They should change the name of the party to "Christchurch First"!

[BlackPeter]

Yeah, no doubt about that. Although Manji is the party leader & he is the one proposing to shower $1 Billion of taxpayer funds on his home patch. I wonder if ‘TOP’ got over the threshold whether ‘The Christchurch Plan’ would be their bottom line in any coalition negotiations?

OK - lets talk regional funding from parties.

I remember NZ First pulling billions into their regional (koha) development fund - mainly spent for their clientel - and not a lot of that of any use for the greater NZ public. Do you remember that as well?

I don't know how much Labour wasted for absolutely pointless projects (cycle bridge, light rail, ...) in Auckland, but it must by now reach already several hundred millions - and absolutely nothing to show for it but empty pockets.

Nationals pledge card contains the roads of significance. I'd encourage you to add up how much of that would be for Auckland. A second motorway I heard. Easy more than a billion I'd say - how is this right?

OK - not sure about ACT, but I reccon since David is looking after the superrich in Auckland, they probably told him that they have already everything they need in their rich enclave and only want to pay less taxes to avoid others getting a similar flash environment. So - Davids gift to the country is austerity for everybody but the superrich ... ah yes, and semi automatic guns for whoever wants them. Just what the doctor prescribed. Really?

So - what again is wrong with TOP proposing a plan to fix Christchurch? The wounds of the Earthquake are still wide open - building fences in too many places (just to prevent people from falling into the ditches, no work done), rough car parks where once buildings used to stand and one of the two cathedrals fixed maybe in 2030 and the other gone). BTW - it was National responsible for running this pathetic repair job. 12 years down the track and still so much damage unrepaired. Do they care? Of course not.

But hey, thanks for reminding us. I guess just thinking back at Nationals failure after the Christchurch earthquakes should take more votes from National and their right wing appendix ACT. Good idea.

Just facts - and you brought that up. TOP seems to be the only party not just caring for the Superrich (like ACT) or for Aucklands motorways (like National), but they care as well for NZ's second largst city: Christchurch. Good on them, they do see where the real need is.

[Logen Ninefingers]

OK - lets talk regional funding from parties.

I remember NZ First pulling billions into their regional (koha) development fund - mainly spent for their clientel - and not a lot of that of any use for the greater NZ public. Do you remember that as well?

I don't know how much Labour wasted for absolutely pointless projects (cycle bridge, light rail, ...) in Auckland, but it must by now reach already several hundred millions - and absolutely nothing to show for it but empty pockets.

Nationals pledge card contains the roads of significance. I'd encourage you to add up how much of that would be for Auckland. A second motorway I heard. Easy more than a billion I'd say - how is this right?

OK - not sure about ACT, but I reccon since David is looking after the superrich in Auckland, they probably told him that they have already everything they need in their rich enclave and only want to pay less taxes to avoid others getting a similar flash environment. So - Davids gift to the country is austerity for everybody but the superrich ... ah yes, and semi automatic guns for whoever wants them. Just what the doctor prescribed. Really?

So - what again is wrong with TOP proposing a plan to fix Christchurch? The wounds of the Earthquake are still wide open - building fences in too many places (just to prevent people from falling into the ditches, no work done), rough car parks where once buildings used to stand and one of the two cathedrals fixed maybe in 2030 and the other gone). BTW - it was National responsible for running this pathetic repair job. 12 years down the track and still so much damage unrepaired. Do they care? Of course not.

But hey, thanks for reminding us. I guess just thinking back at Nationals failure after the Christchurch earthquakes should take more votes from National and their right wing appendix ACT. Good idea.

Just facts - and you brought that up. TOP seems to be the only party not just caring for the Superrich (like ACT) or for Aucklands motorways (like National), but they care as well for NZ's second largst city: Christchurch. Good on them, they do see where the real need is.

You are going out if your way to defend ‘TOP’ over the Christchurch based Manji’s key policy of showering Christchurch with $1 Billion of taxpayer funds, and good on you for doing so. Maybe they will get over the threshold, who knows.

[BlackPeter]

You are going out if your way to defend ‘TOP’ over the Christchurch based Manji’s key policy of showering Christchurch with $1 Billion of taxpayer funds, and good on you for doing so. Maybe they will get over the threshold, who knows.

All good. Just one thing - it is not Manji's key policy, but it is one out of eight key policies ... and as far as I see are the other seven policies applicable for the whole country.

Are we blaming him next for TOP's policy to invest more into New Zealand's youth? Not good for the elderlies, is it?

[Baa_Baa]

A terrific outcome for TOP would be Manji winning the electorate and getting a seat in parliament, then National/Act only needing one extra seat to govern, anointing TOP on confidence and supply, giving NZ First the bird. Shades of Peter Dunne.

Lol, I'd buy popcorn and a beer to see that happen. :t_up:

[Azz]

National will win Ilam

[Logen Ninefingers]

National will win Ilam

They are miles ahead. Why would the electorate wake up one morning and say 'I think we'll all vote TOP!'
Obviously the TOP fans are keen, but why should anyone else buy in?
Plus nobody knows who Raf Manji would go with, he may annoint Labour. Too much of an unknown really.

[BlackPeter]

They are miles ahead. Why would the electorate wake up one morning and say 'I think we'll all vote TOP!'
Obviously the TOP fans are keen, but why should anyone else buy in?
Plus nobody knows who Raf Manji would go with, he may annoint Labour. Too much of an unknown really.

Now I am confused. You complained only yesterday that its a problem of the NZ MMP system that parties form camps already prior to the election, and today you complain that Manji didn't join in?

I do hope he would go with whoever he is able to better implement TOPS's program ...

[Logen Ninefingers]

Now I am confused. You complained only yesterday that its a problem of the NZ MMP system that parties form camps already prior to the election, and today you complain that Manji didn't join in?

I do hope he would go with whoever he is able to better implement TOPS's program ...

What I said is that in Germany they operate MMP differently, and I pointed out what they do differently.

Centre-right voters will not vote for TOP if they think there is a chance Manji will go into a coalition with Labour. I don't think there is anything illogical or controversial in saying that.

I'll reiterate my points again:
1/ Manji is a career politician from the UK. He is based in Christchurch and has been a Christchurch City Councillor.
2/ One of TOP's key policy planks is 'The Christchurch Plan', a plan to inject $1 Billion of taxpayer funds into Christchurch city.
3/ 'The Ilam electorate in Christchurch is swinging back towards National, according the results of the latest Taxpayers' Union - Curia poll.
The latest poll found that 33 percent of respondents would be likely to vote for National candidate Hamish Campbell, while 15 percent favoured Labour's incumbent Sarah Pallett. Pallett came in just ahead of The Opportunities Party (TOP) leader Raf Manji, who 14 percent of respondents chose.'
4/ The latest national political poll from Newshub-Reid Research (25/09/2023) found that TOP has approx 1.9% support.
5/ A recent OneNews poll found that 80% of respondents want to know prior to the election who parties will & won't work worth.

These are the facts. They may be unpalatable to TOP supporters but I cannot help that.

[BlackPeter]

What I said is that in Germany they operate MMP differently, and I pointed out what they do differently.

Centre-right voters will not vote for TOP if they think there is a chance Manji will go into a coalition with Labour. I don't think there is anything illogical or controversial in saying that.

I'll reiterate my points again:
1/ Manji is a career politician from the UK. He is based in Christchurch and has been a Christchurch City Councillor.
2/ One of TOP's key policy planks is 'The Christchurch Plan', a plan to inject $1 Billion of taxpayer funds into Christchurch city.
3/ 'The Ilam electorate in Christchurch is swinging back towards National, according the results of the latest Taxpayers' Union - Curia poll.
The latest poll found that 33 percent of respondents would be likely to vote for National candidate Hamish Campbell, while 15 percent favoured Labour's incumbent Sarah Pallett. Pallett came in just ahead of The Opportunities Party (TOP) leader Raf Manji, who 14 percent of respondents chose.'
4/ The latest national political poll from Newshub-Reid Research (25/09/2023) found that TOP has approx 1.9% support.
5/ A recent OneNews poll found that 80% of respondents want to know prior to the election who parties will & won't work worth.

These are the facts. They may be unpalatable to TOP supporters but I cannot help that.

You sound desperate ... actually so desperate that you start mixing facts with fiction - and some of your facts are absolutely irrelevant.

What is the relevance that Manji is from the UK? All of us (either we or our forebears) come from somewhere else - so, why are you repeating that ad nauseam. Are you a xenophobe? Do you hate Brits?

Personally - while the British have as well their fair share of idiots, so has any other people. So - again, what is your point?

And yes, he has been a Christchurch City councilor. Which means he has experience in political roles. Why is this a negative? Or do you mean you only support politicians who served in your local rabbit hole (wherever this might be)?

You are repeating like a broken disc that he is a career politician. Wrong. He started his career as a banker and had serveal roles internationally as investment banker ... btw - did you hold that against John Key as well (having been an investment banker), or is this just because you are afraid TOP might make it?

Not too interested in your local polls. Polls (particularly local polls) are a snapshot of a very small sample with a huge error of margin. If that's what counts, why do we have elections anyway? Just have a poll and go on with governing, shall we?

Look, it is fine with me if you prefer to vote for one of the parties which brought us down into the mess we are. That's democracy, and good luck with that. It is fine as well if you disagree with some of TOP's proposed policies - this is democracy as well. However - your desperate clutching for straws to find something negative about TOP starts to become a bit tiresome, particularly if you bring up issues which are neither relevant nor new - and some are not even true.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You sound desperate ... actually so desperate that you start mixing facts with fiction - and some of your facts are absolutely irrelevant.

What is the relevance that Manji is from the UK? All of us (either we or our forebears) come from somewhere else - so, why are you repeating that ad nauseam. Are you a xenophobe? Do you hate Brits?

Personally - while the British have as well their fair share of idiots, so has any other people. So - again, what is your point?

And yes, he has been a Christchurch City councilor. Which means he has experience in political roles. Why is this a negative? Or do you mean you only support politicians who served in your local rabbit hole (wherever this might be)?

You are repeating like a broken disc that he is a career politician. Wrong. He started his career as a banker and had serveal roles internationally as investment banker ... btw - did you hold that against John Key as well (having been an investment banker), or is this just because you are afraid TOP might make it?

Not too interested in your local polls. Polls (particularly local polls) are a snapshot of a very small sample with a huge error of margin. If that's what counts, why do we have elections anyway? Just have a poll and go on with governing, shall we?

Look, it is fine with me if you prefer to vote for one of the parties which brought us down into the mess we are. That's democracy, and good luck with that. It is fine as well if you disagree with some of TOP's proposed policies - this is democracy as well. However - your desperate clutching for straws to find something negative about TOP starts to become a bit tiresome, particularly if you bring up issues which are neither relevant nor new - and some are not even true.

I'm not 'clutching for straws', I'm presenting a number of facts. If Manji wanted to continue his career as a lawyer he would have done so. The fact that he is taking on political roles indicates he sees himself as a politician. So there is nothing special or unique about Manji in that respect, he is 'another politician'. He didn't found the TOP party, and I have no doubt that if he wasn't able to make headway with entering the TOP hierachy then he would have lobbed up at some other NZ political party. As a Councillor, Manji was a close ally of the left-wing mayor Lianne Daziel, and this is just one more thing that will not endear him to centre-right voters. The Ilam poll numbers are no surprise when you really think about it.

I don't give a hoot who you vote for. I am not seeking to influence you in the slightest. The election won't be decided by one person's vote. I'm collated together some points, and others can determine if they are valid or not. You've chosen to respond angrily.

You can dismiss the polls if you like, but this close to an election I think on the night these numbers will play out pretty close to where they are now. That will be disappointing for TOP fans but such is life, there is very little point in burying ones head in the sand and pretending that Manji will romp home in Ilam and TOP will get over the threshold in the party vote.

If TOP 'made it' it would certainly be an interesting development, but not something I'm 'afraid of'. They seem to appeal to younger voters so would probably be taking votes off Labour and the Greens. That's not a bad thing in my book. I have no axe to grind with 'TOP', I just don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses & I'm 85% sure they won't be going into Parliament this election. Maybe one day their time will come.

[justakiwi]

I don't think anyone who supports TOP, realistically expects them to be in Parliament this year. But maybe now is the time to stand up and make a statement, if nothing else. My vote is worth nothing right now. National doesn't need it, and I'm not interested in giving it to Labour, ACT, or the Greens. But I might just decide to give it to TOP. The more votes they get this time round, the more attention is drawn to the party. People start noticing when a minor party starts picking up votes. The more votes a party gets, the more the media pricks up their ears too. TOP is probably unlikely to gain a seat this election, but they have to start somewhere. I am extremely disillusioned with the political landscape in this country, and I have zero confidence that anything of any real significance will change or improve, over the next three years. My vote may be a "wasted" vote in your opinion, but at least it won't be a vote for a party that doesn't meet my needs or expectations, or a party that doesn't match my personal values.


I'm not 'clutching for straws', I'm presenting a number of facts. If Manji wanted to continue his career as a lawyer he would have done so. The fact that he is taking on political roles indicates he sees himself as a politician. So there is nothing special or unique about Manji in that respect, he is 'another politician'. He didn't found the TOP party, and I have no doubt that if he wasn't able to make headway with entering the TOP hierachy then he would have lobbed up at some other NZ political party. As a Councillor, Manji was a close ally of the left-wing mayor Lianne Daziel, and this is just one more thing that will not endear him to centre-right voters. The Ilam poll numbers are no surprise when you really think about it.

I don't give a hoot who you vote for. I am not seeking to influence you in the slightest. The election won't be decided by one person's vote. I'm collated together some points, and others can determine if they are valid or not. You've chosen to respond angrily.

You can dismiss the polls if you like, but this close to an election I think on the night these numbers will play out pretty close to where they are now. That will be disappointing for TOP fans but such is life, there is very little point in burying ones head in the sand and pretending that Manji will romp home in Ilam and TOP will get over the threshold in the party vote.

If TOP 'made it' it would certainly be an interesting development, but not something I'm 'afraid of'. They seem to appeal to younger voters so would probably be taking votes off Labour and the Greens. That's not a bad thing in my book. I have no axe to grind with 'TOP', I just don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses & I'm 85% sure they won't be going into Parliament this election. Maybe one day their time will come.

[ValueNZ]

I don't think anyone who supports TOP, realistically expects them to be in Parliament this year. But maybe now is the time to stand up and make a statement, if nothing else. My vote is worth nothing right now. National doesn't need it, and I'm not interested in giving it to Labour, ACT, or the Greens. But I might just decide to give it to TOP. The more votes they get this time round, the more attention is drawn to the party. People start noticing when a minor party starts picking up votes. The more votes a party gets, the more the media pricks up their ears too. TOP is probably unlikely to gain a seat this election, but they have to start somewhere. I am extremely disillusioned with the political landscape in this country, and I have zero confidence that anything of any real significance will change or improve, over the next three years. My vote may be a "wasted" vote in your opinion, but at least it won't be a vote for a party that doesn't meet my needs or expectations, or a party that doesn't match my personal values.


[/B]
The problem is that I don't think this country could handle another Labour/Greens/Te Pati government in power. Even if you don't like National or Act, surely you could make the argument that it is the lesser of the two evils and help ensure Labour/Greens/Te Pati don't get into power by giving National or Act your vote.

Just a thought.

[justakiwi]

I don't believe for one minute that Labour/Greens/Te Pati, will be our government. National and ACT (and possibly Winston) are going to win the election.

Having said that, while I respect your suggestion, it is precisely what is pissing me off this time round. I don't want to vote for a party that is "the lesser of two evils." I want to vote for a party who has philosophies, values, and policies I align with. A party that makes me feel positive about NZ's (and my own) future. A party that thinks outside the square, and understands that we can't just keep doing what we have always done, because it is not working!




The problem is that I don't think this country could handle another Labour/Greens/Te Pati government in power. Even if you don't like National or Act, surely you could make the argument that it is the lesser of the two evils and help ensure Labour/Greens/Te Pati don't get into power by giving National or Act your vote.

Just a thought.

[ValueNZ]

I don't believe for one minute that Labour/Greens/Te Pati, will be our government. National and ACT (and possibly Winston) are going to win the election.

Having said that, while I respect your suggestion, it is precisely what is pissing me off this time round. I don't want to vote for a party that is "the lesser of two evils." I want to vote for a party who has philosophies, values, and policies I align with. A party that makes me feel positive about NZ's (and my own) future. A party that thinks outside the square, and understands that we can't just keep doing what we have always done, because it is not working!
I agree that National and Act probably going to get in, but I don't think that its necessarily a given. Just to prove a point you could make an easy 15-20% return by betting on National winning. But thats obviously not a free lunch - betting markets are pricing in a fair probability National not being sworn in.

It may piss you off but that's just the nature of democracy, it is never going to be the most efficient way of doing things but it is a hell of alot better than other systems of forming government.

[BlackPeter]

The problem is that I don't think this country could handle another Labour/Greens/Te Pati government in power. Even if you don't like National or Act, surely you could make the argument that it is the lesser of the two evils and help ensure Labour/Greens/Te Pati don't get into power by giving National or Act your vote.

Just a thought.

Not really.

While I agree that the proposed left-wing coalition sounds chaotic, so would the likely right-wing coalition (National / ACT / NZF). Do we really need taxcuts and austerity policies given a strained health and a broken education system? How much good will this do for our future? We need investments into things which matter to us - like health, education and into our youth.

Our problem is that New Zealand has currently no real political centre ... some liberals in Labour (and quite weak) and some liberals in National (but National purged many of the good ones after Muller). I would see TOP currently as the best candidate to create a new political home for liberal politicians.

And sure, they still will need time to grow and mature, but you only grow with experience - so, that's what they need.

The current swapping between political extremes which results just in the destruction of our common wealth (one side by underfunding it and the other side by incompetence) is poison for our political future. We currently just rock the boat stronger with every election - and a National Party without liberals with the need to please ACT's austerity policies and the need to supply Winstons baubles wont be much better for the country than another Labour coalition. Sorry.

Whatever it is chaos left or chaos right - people will not like it and in three years (or perhaps earlier) NZ will rock the boat again come election time. Left to Right and Right to Left. Stronger and stronger.

We need to plan beyond the next election and the next swap of extreme governments. We need to create a basis for a more stable political future for NZ, and for that we need a stable liberal party.

... and yes, despite the consistent negativity from one of the posters here ... I do see a good chance for TOP to make it already this election into parliament. Won't change all problems at once, but it would be a start.

[Logen Ninefingers]

I don't believe for one minute that Labour/Greens/Te Pati, will be our government. National and ACT (and possibly Winston) are going to win the election.

Having said that, while I respect your suggestion, it is precisely what is pissing me off this time round. I don't want to vote for a party that is "the lesser of two evils." I want to vote for a party who has philosophies, values, and policies I align with. A party that makes me feel positive about NZ's (and my own) future. A party that thinks outside the square, and understands that we can't just keep doing what we have always done, because it is not working!

And if LABGREETEPATI does get in and the country implodes over the ensuing 3 years, you’ll be one of the people who can look in the mirror and say to yourself that you did nothing to prevent it, you just relied on other voters to do it.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Not really.

While I agree that the proposed left-wing coalition sounds chaotic, so would the likely right-wing coalition (National / ACT / NZF). Do we really need taxcuts and austerity policies given a strained health and a broken education system? How much good will this do for our future? We need investments into things which matter to us - like health, education and into our youth.

Our problem is that New Zealand has currently no real political centre ... some liberals in Labour (and quite weak) and some liberals in National (but National purged many of the good ones after Muller). I would see TOP currently as the best candidate to create a new political home for liberal politicians.

And sure, they still will need time to grow and mature, but you only grow with experience - so, that's what they need.

The current swapping between political extremes which results just in the destruction of our common wealth (one side by underfunding it and the other side by incompetence) is poison for our political future. We currently just rock the boat stronger with every election - and a National Party without liberals with the need to please ACT's austerity policies and the need to supply Winstons baubles wont be much better for the country than another Labour coalition. Sorry.

Whatever it is chaos left or chaos right - people will not like it and in three years (or perhaps earlier) NZ will rock the boat again come election time. Left to Right and Right to Left. Stronger and stronger.

We need to plan beyond the next election and the next swap of extreme governments. We need to create a basis for a more stable political future for NZ, and for that we need a stable liberal party.

... and yes, despite the consistent negativity from one of the posters here ... I do see a good chance for TOP to make it already this election into parliament. Won't change all problems at once, but it would be a start.

A different perspective is now ‘negativity’. Goodness me, if TOPs own policies & the poll results that have been released represent ‘negativity’ then you have a very skewed perspective. If you have any poll results to hand that contradict anything I have said, please post them. That is how a debate is supposed to work, you are supposed to present rebuttal evidence to back up your viewpoint. Calling others ‘afraid’ or ‘negative’ is a form of ad hominem attack. You can’t win a debate that way.

[fungus pudding]

And if LABGREETEPATI does get in and the country implodes over the ensuing 3 years, you’ll be one of the people who can look in the mirror and say to yourself that you did nothing to prevent it, you just relied on other voters to do it.

That's the way I see it. I try and use my vote as best I can against the party I consider will do the most harm. Of the parties on offer, there isn't one I agree with on every point; and surely most voters are in that very same position. In fact there are even candidates standing who don't agree with every single one of their party's policies. That's politics - 'the art of compromise'.

[justakiwi]

Sorry buddy, but no I won't. No more than I feel any guilt whatsoever, for voting Labour at the last election. We all make our decisions at election time, based on whatever our personal reasons for doing so are. None of us ever have any guarantees that the party we vote for, will keep their promises, achieve their goals, or let us down over time. You will no doubt vote for National, but you have zero ability to predict the future, and how they will perform if they become government. Maybe we will experience more crises over the next three years? I hope not, but we live with a high known risk of another major earthquake, and our changing climate patterns means more storms, floods etc, are pretty much a given. If National/ACT are dealt a crappy hand in terms of emergency situations, those events will have a major impact on their ability to keep their promises and achieve their goals. Just as they have with Labour. No, I am not saying Labour is not to blame for some of their failings - of course they are - but they were dealt a crappy hand in that respect, and I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny that.

I don't have to justify my decisions to you, and you don't have to justify yours to me. Balance is constantly trying to throw a guilt trip on me, and others who voted Labour last time, but I'm not playing that game. If National/ACT win the election, and three years down the track, we are all bitching about the terrible job they have done, I will not hold you, and others who voted for them, responsible. I will respect that you made what you believed to be the best decision at the time.

That is what mature adults do.



And if LABGREETEPATI does get in and the country implodes over the ensuing 3 years, you’ll be one of the people who can look in the mirror and say to yourself that you did nothing to prevent it, you just relied on other voters to do it.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Sorry buddy, but no I won't. No more than I feel any guilt whatsoever, for voting Labour at the last election. We all make our decisions at election time, based on whatever our personal reasons for doing so are. None of us ever have any guarantees that the party we vote for, will keep their promises, achieve their goals, or let us down over time. You will no doubt vote for National, but you have zero ability to predict the future, and how they will perform if they become government. Maybe we will experience more crises over the next three years? I hope not, but we live with a high known risk of another major earthquake, and our changing climate patterns means more storms, floods etc, are pretty much a given. If National/ACT are dealt a crappy hand in terms of emergency situations, those events will have a major impact on their ability to keep their promises and achieve their goals. Just as they have with Labour. No, I am not saying Labour is not to blame for some of their failings - of course they are - but they were dealt a crappy hand in that respect, and I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny that.

I don't have to justify my decisions to you, and you don't have to justify yours to me. Balance is constantly trying to throw a guilt trip on me, and others who voted Labour last time, but I'm not playing that game. If National/ACT win the election, and three years down the track, we are all bitching about the terrible job they have done, I will not hold you, and others who voted for them, responsible. I will respect that you made what you believed to be the best decision at the time.

That is what mature adults do.

I will vote National? That’s news to me.

You must be awfully proud of Robbo’s $100 Billion spend-up with nothing to show for it + the co-governance mess that Labour have landed us in. The only way National could ‘make things worse’ is if they have a dastardly plan to blow NZ up with a hydrogen bomb.

[Logen Ninefingers]

That's the way I see it. I try and use my vote as best I can against the party I consider will do the most harm. Of the parties on offer, there isn't one I agree with on every point; and surely most voters are in that very same position. In fact there are even candidates standing who don't agree with every single one of their party's policies. That's politics - 'the art of compromise'.

Yeah, good on you mate. It’s time to man up and ensure the defeat of the appalling Left wing hydra that threatens the economic and social stability of our country. We either stop them now or New Zealand will be finished, we will become a banana republic. It is that serious.

[justakiwi]

You clearly have a reading comprehension problem, or simply an unwillingness to accept my choice to make my own decision. I did not say National would "make things worse." Not once. It is a real shame that people here, seem incapable of having a discussion about political parties in general, without constantly attacking others for their previous voting decisions. I have expressed my opinions about various parties, but I have not once criticised any individual for their views, or the choices they make. Why do so many of you feel the need to do that?

Either way, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to debate with you. I hope for your sake, that whichever party you vote into government, meets your expectations over the next three years.




I will vote National? That’s news to me.

You must be awfully proud of Robbo’s $100 Billion spend-up with nothing to show for it + the co-governance mess that Labour have landed us in. The only way National could ‘make things worse’ is if they have a dastardly plan to blow NZ up with a hydrogen bomb.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You clearly have a reading comprehension problem, or simply an unwillingness to accept my choice to make my own decision. I did not say National would "make things worse." Not once. It is a real shame that people here, seem incapable of having a discussion about political parties in general, without constantly attacking others for their previous voting decisions. I have expressed my opinions about various parties, but I have not once criticised any individual for their views, or the choices they make. Why do so many of you feel the need to do that?

Either way, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to debate with you. I hope for your sake, that whichever party you vote into government, meets your expectations over the next three years.

I have ZERO expectations other than it won’t be the toxic & destructive LABGREETEPATI nightmare! People will leave NZ in droves, in absolute droves, if that hideous monstrosity takes power. Who will leave? Anyone with skills, money, gumption, and a desire to do right by themselves & their families. You have been warned.

[BlackPeter]

I will vote National? That’s news to me.

You must be awfully proud of Robbo’s $100 Billion spend-up with nothing to show for it + the co-governance mess that Labour have landed us in. The only way National could ‘make things worse’ is if they have a dastardly plan to blow NZ up with a hydrogen bomb.


Yeah, good on you mate. It’s time to man up and ensure the defeat of the appalling Left wing hydra that threatens the economic and social stability of our country. We either stop them now or New Zealand will be finished, we will become a banana republic. It is that serious.


I have ZERO expectations other than it won’t be the toxic & destructive LABGREETEPATI nightmare! People will leave NZ in droves, in absolute droves, if that hideous monstrosity takes power. Who will leave? Anyone with skills, money, gumption, and a desire to do right by themselves & their families. You have been warned.

Pretty infantil responses finishing with an apocalyptic warning. Not sure, what you are smoking, but this is quite dumb behaviour if you want people to take you seriously.

While I agree that Labors record is not very good, they still brought us better to the other side of the pandemic than many other governments did that with their citizens. And no, I don't like the racist policies they implemented either, but neither 3 waters nor co-governance for water and health is the end of the world. Sure - they do increase bureaucracy and they insure that some of the warm bodies sitting around the governing boards will have darker skin. Don't tell me though that our previous system to elect e.g. heathboards produced a better result - it was more a random selection of people, and most of them selected either by random or because the voter happened to have heard the name of the person who populated the health boards.

The Greens actually do some good environmental stuff, if it would not be for their Left wing (and nothing to do with Green) socialist policies. But yes, this is a different subject.

There used to be even a time when the Maori party was respectable instead of racist (think Peter Sharples), but sure ... this was the good old times.

While I am sure that a government formed by National in combination with ACT hellbound to cut public services and budgets and a populist Winston First would be different, there is so far no evidence that it would be any better than the alternative.

You must have a look at how the tories used to downrun the British economy - hey, this used to be the 5th strongest economy in the world, and now it is the sick man of Europe. We clearly don't need to rerun the British experiment, do we? The results of a tory govenmnet here won't be better than over there.

So - better hope (and contribute) that the Liberals get enough votes to stabilise the madness coming from both the political left as well as the political right. If you don't support TOP, you are clearly responsible for the misery which is likely to unfold here in NZ in the next 3 years without a political centre party! You have been warned ;) ;

Discl: This post needs to be read in context, it contains irony and is an in-kind response to some previous posts.

[Azz]

"Hey Ilam voters, let's all randomly vote for the TOP Party!" -- Anon

"Sure absolutely why not! I don't know who they are, but they've definitely got my vote!" -- Ilam voters

[Baa_Baa]

"Hey Ilam voters, let's all randomly vote for the TOP Party!" -- Anon

"Sure absolutely why not! I don't know who they are, but they've definitely got my vote!" -- Ilam voters

A tactical voter who liked TOP would give their electorate vote to Manji to try and get him into parliament, whereas a party vote TOP is a waste of time as there's no hope in hell of TOP getting 5%, so that means they can party vote for which ever party they'd prefer TOP to align with.

[Azz]

A tactical voter who liked TOP would give their electorate vote to Manji to try and get him into parliament, whereas a party vote TOP is a waste of time as there's hope in hell of TOP getting 5%, so that means they can party vote for which ever party they'd prefer TOP to align with.

Why get him into parliament? For what purpose?

And National voters won't be voting for him with their electorate vote. So who will be doing this tactical mastery? Labour voters, they're going to vote TOP with their electorate vote?

[Logen Ninefingers]

A tactical voter who liked TOP would give their electorate vote to Manji to try and get him into parliament, whereas a party vote TOP is a waste of time as there's no hope in hell of TOP getting 5%, so that means they can party vote for which ever party they'd prefer TOP to align with.

It looks like about 14% of voters in Ilam like TOP and are therefore willing to give Manji their electorate vote & will take the chance that Manji will go with a party they like in a coalition. This is according to the most recent poll. Not sure what else can be said; Right and Left voters have no incentive to give Manji their vote, as they have no idea who he'd go with.

[Baa_Baa]

Why get him into parliament? For what purpose?

And National voters won't be voting for him with their electorate vote. So who will be doing this tactical mastery? Labour voters, they're going to vote TOP with their electorate vote?

This precedent (https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/former-members-of-parliament/dunne-peter/), most of whom the electorate voted for him, and party voted National.

[Logen Ninefingers]

This precedent (https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/former-members-of-parliament/dunne-peter/), most of whom the electorate voted for him, and party voted National.

The key difference was that Dunne was already an electorate MP who had a committed following. He defected from Labour and managed to take voters with him.

[Baa_Baa]

It looks like about 14% of voters in Ilam like TOP and are therefore willing to give Manji their electorate vote & will take the chance that Manji will go with a party they like in a coalition. This is according to the most recent poll. Not sure what else can be said; Right and Left voters have no incentive to give Manji their vote, as they have no idea who he'd go with.

Yes, agree it looks like Ilam will swing back to National on current polls, dashing the possibilities for Manji and TOP.

[Azz]

This precedent (https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/former-members-of-parliament/dunne-peter/), most of whom the electorate voted for him, and party voted National.

Not a precedent; different situation.

[Baa_Baa]

The key difference was that Dunne was already an electorate MP who had a committed following. He defected from Labour and managed to take voters with him.

Agree again, it's just an illustration of how tactical electorate voting can put someone in parliament, and party vote whom they want them to work with. Manji is a minnow compared to Dunne, but he does have a significant following in Ilam, albeit likely to lose. Probably TOP destined to another three years at least in the political wilderness.

[Baa_Baa]

Not a precedent; different situation.

Whatever, it is just an illustration of how a tactical electorate vote can get someone into parliament. That's TOP's only chance, albeit slim.

National/Act on current polling only need one parliamentary member to avoid a coalition with NZ First.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Whatever, it is just an illustration of how a tactical electorate vote can get someone into parliament. That's TOP's only chance, albeit slim.

National/Act on current polling only need one parliamentary member to avoid a coalition with NZ First.

I don't know how ACT can be on 8% and 'collapsing' according to the TV3 poll, and two nights later on 12% according to the OneNews poll. Something is off there.

[dln]

That's called the 'margin of error' of the poll.

[Azz]

Apparently these are the parties contesting the electorate of Ilam:

------------------------
DemocracyNZ
Green
Labour
Legalise Cannabis
National
New Conservative
Opportunities aka The Opportunities Party aka TOP
------------------------

Legalise Cannabis might do better than TOP.

[Azz]

Whatever, it is just an illustration of how a tactical electorate vote can get someone into parliament. That's TOP's only chance, albeit slim.

National/Act on current polling only need one parliamentary member to avoid a coalition with NZ First.

But the "precedent" was an incumbent (Peter Dunne). Totally different situation. Chalk and cheese.

[Baa_Baa]

But the "precedent" was an incumbent (Peter Dunne). Totally different situation. Chalk and cheese.

You don't seem to accept that he had to be voted in every three years, at each of the elections? That had to start somewhere. He won the electorate vote for many years and stood as a supply partner holding ministerial positions, and when not as an independent. He achieved a great deal, it is an illustration that an individual who wins an electorate vote can get into parliament and make a difference.

Anyway, this is all academic on current polling, TOP and Manji don't appear to stand a chance of winning Ilam, and ergo a seat in parliament.

[Azz]

You don't seem to accept that he had to be voted in every three years, at each of the elections? That had to start somewhere. He won the electorate vote for many years and stood as a supply partner holding ministerial positions, and when not as an independent. He achieved a great deal, it is an illustration that an individual who wins an electorate vote can get into parliament and make a difference.

Anyway, this is all academic on current polling, TOP and Manji don't appear to stand a chance of winning Ilam, and ergo a seat in parliament.

I'm basically saying the same thing as Logen Ninefingers; you wrote "Agree again..." to Logen but you're arguing with me.

[Baa_Baa]

I'm basically saying the same thing as Logen Ninefingers; you wrote "Agree again..." to Logen but you're arguing with me.

I think he expresses his contention somewhat better and stays on point with his message. You just seem to enjoy initiating an argument with wind-up statement then engaging in the argument that follows, without ever acknowledging whether the counter argument has any merit whatsoever.

Cheers, I'm done for tonight on this.

[Azz]

I think he expresses his contention somewhat better and stays on point with his message. You just seem to enjoy initiating an argument with wind-up statement then engaging in the argument that follows, without ever acknowledging whether the counter argument has any merit whatsoever.

Cheers, I'm done for tonight on this.

That's total crap, Baa_Baa, I didn't do any of that. I wrote this:

"Not a precedent; different situation."

To which you started your reply with "Whatever, ..." which is pretty rude. Then you argued the point.

And then I wrote this:

"But the "precedent" was an incumbent (Peter Dunne). Totally different situation. Chalk and cheese."

...Which is not at all dissimilar to what Logen wrote.

How did that upset you?

[Aaron]

TOP must be too reasonable, the media give them no coverage.

Maybe Raf should suggest cutting the cable and letting the pig islanders fend for themselves.

[Logen Ninefingers]

TOP must be too reasonable, the media give them no coverage.

Maybe Raf should suggest cutting the cable and letting the pig islanders fend for themselves.

Take an extremist viewpoint you mean? He'd gain the sort of people that have an intense hatred of North Islanders, but lose everyone else.

[Aaron]

Take an extremist viewpoint you mean? He'd gain the sort of people that have an intense hatred of North Islanders, but lose everyone else.

My point exactly, probably front page news and media coverage if he makes such a ridiculous statement, but if you put forward sensible views and policies no one hears about it.

[Logen Ninefingers]

My point exactly, probably front page news and media coverage if he makes such a ridiculous statement, but if you put forward sensible views and policies no one hears about it.

Whether a $1 Billion injection of taxpayer funds into Christchurch represents a 'sensible view and policy' is a matter for debate, as are all TOP's other policies.
Some people make the mistake of thinking that if something is 'shiny and new' then that means it must also invariably be 'good'. I don't turn off my critical thinking skills simply because something is 'new'.

[Aaron]

Whether a $1 Billion injection of taxpayer funds into Christchurch represents a 'sensible view and policy' is a matter for debate, as are all TOP's other policies.

You sound like a pig islander.

Sadly Raf is succumbing to the NZ politicians need to buy votes with taxpayer money. Perhaps he should ask Shane Jones how that went for him in Northland

National also tried for that matter, in the bye election where the first thing they said was have "six" bridges and vote for us, Northlanders said they were not for sale and voted in Winston, then turned around and said the same thing to Shane Jones and NZF. At least one electorate in the country has some integrity.

[Panda-NZ-]

Whether a $1 Billion injection of taxpayer funds into Christchurch represents a 'sensible view and policy' is a matter for debate, as are all TOP's other policies.
Some people make the mistake of thinking that if something is 'shiny and new' then that means it must also invariably be 'good'. I don't turn off my critical thinking skills simply because something is 'new'.

On the contrary I think you should turn a blind eye to new political parties with inexperience.

Otherwise you leave it to PR machines, battling each other with their talking points, but no solutions being offered (especially long term ones which new parties can bring up).

[Logen Ninefingers]

On the contrary I think you should turn a blind eye to new political parties with inexperience.

Otherwise you leave it to PR machines, battling each other with their talking points, but no solutions being offered (especially long term ones which new parties can bring up).

An 'interesting' point of view.

[Panda-NZ-]

Thank you very much.

[BlackPeter]

I don't know how ACT can be on 8% and 'collapsing' according to the TV3 poll, and two nights later on 12% according to the OneNews poll. Something is off there.

You need to read the fine print.

All these polls have a margin of error of (depending on the sample size) at least 3%. 8% and 12% are just 4 points (which is less than the margin of error, which would be 6 points) apart, i.e. ACT might not have changed at all or even might have dropped from the 8% measurement to the 12% measurement.

Stats 101.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You need to read the fine print.

All these polls have a margin of error of (depending on the sample size) at least 3%. 8% and 12% are just 4 points (which is less than the margin of error, which would be 6 points) apart, i.e. ACT might not have changed at all or even might have dropped from the 8% measurement to the 12% measurement.

Stats 101.

I'm talking about the breathless reporting from the media...."ACT are collapsing!!!!"
That's based on the Newshub Reid Research poll.

A couple of nights later on OneNews, according to their poll: "ACT are steady on 12%"

Now scroll on to today, the 28th, and you get this story on the NZ Herald -

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/election-2023-down-on-polls-mp-unaware-of-te-matatini-but-act-leader-david-seymour-still-confident-ahead-of-election/PRTS3WD5PNGW3EAHYYD73CBCMI/

'And despite being on a string of ups, the Act Party has hit a down in the polls, according to the latest Newshub Reid Research Poll released earlier this week.

Christopher Luxon’s preferred coalition partner dropped to single digits from 10.1 per cent to 8.8 per cent.

It means Act and National would only be able to secure around 60 seats, needing New Zealand First to return to Parliament to get across the line.

Act leader David Seymour isn’t worried about the poll result and is confident that an Act-National alliance is still possible.'

[BlackPeter]

OK - I see a lot of focus in the discussion on tactics (is there a point to do tactical voting based on some polls with a huge margin of error). I don't see any focus on strategy and long term goals.

If you look at any society where people are allowed to freely express their opinions, than you have ALWAYS something like 1/3rd of the society voting right, no matter what (most of them decent conservatives and some of them with autocratic tendencies). You have as well a similar amount of always left voting people (most of them decent and honest socialists and some of them with dictatorial tendencies) - and you have roughly 1/3rd in the middle. The often called "Centre".

These people in the centre actually decide the elections, given that the rest does not change their views, no matter what. The centre will, depending on their current views of what the smallest evil might be either vote left or vote right.

If they have their own party in parliament, than this adds stability to the political system, otherwise you have the centre just swapping from one term to the next from the left to the right and back - resulting too often in one party having the majority (like Labour this term, thanks to the bulldog Judith Collins being the alternative) and abusing this power by doing things the majority never wanted (like co-governance).

Without getting this centre party back into parliament its not hard to envisage, that this time the right block feels bas on the results that they are allowed to do whatever they want, they will pi** of enough liberals and the pendulum will swing back next term.

This is a highly inefficient way to run a country (just imagine a company changing not just the CEO but as well the course every 3 years) - and we obviously all pay for this. Lots of wasted tax payer dollars for never used plans and never completed implementations and lots of wasted opportunities.

This is the reason we need a Centre party in parliament. They can talk with both sides, they can work with both sides, and they can keep the ship on a course which is agreeable to both sides.

That's the reason why I think it would be good for all New Zealanders for a liberal party to get back into parliament - and TOP is the only candidate for this position I currently can see.

Obviously - we can as well keep voting every 3 or 6 years a new government, destroy everything the guys before did and get voted out before the new guys achieve what they say they want.

Not very sensible if you look at it from the outside, but maybe we just enjoy rocking the boat and the thrill to wonder whether it will sink next time we swap from one extreme (like a Labour super majority) to the other.

Every time somebody asks for hard right solutions, they should remember that for each right wing person there is as well a left wing person in the country. Instead of throwing the wheel around every other time we vote, it would be much better to agree on sensible and clever solutions we all can live with. And yes, to achieve that you need to be able to talk with the other block ... and this would be typically the liberals in National (well, whoever is left), the liberals in Labour and to stabilize that you need a Liberal party as anchor in parliament.

This might happen this time or not, but this does not change the fact, that it would be good for the country - for all of us.

Hey, this even could be a reason for tactical voting :) ;

[Logen Ninefingers]

OK - I see a lot of focus in the discussion on tactics (is there a point to do tactical voting based on some polls with a huge margin of error). I don't see any focus on strategy and long term goals.

If you look at any society where people are allowed to freely express their opinions, than you have ALWAYS something like 1/3rd of the society voting right, no matter what (most of them decent conservatives and some of them with autocratic tendencies). You have as well a similar amount of always left voting people (most of them decent and honest socialists and some of them with dictatorial tendencies) - and you have roughly 1/3rd in the middle. The often called "Centre".

These people in the centre actually decide the elections, given that the rest does not change their views, no matter what. The centre will, depending on their current views of what the smallest evil might be either vote left or vote right.

If they have their own party in parliament, than this adds stability to the political system, otherwise you have the centre just swapping from one term to the next from the left to the right and back - resulting too often in one party having the majority (like Labour this term, thanks to the bulldog Judith Collins being the alternative) and abusing this power by doing things the majority never wanted (like co-governance).

Without getting this centre party back into parliament its not hard to envisage, that this time the right block feels bas on the results that they are allowed to do whatever they want, they will pi** of enough liberals and the pendulum will swing back next term.

This is a highly inefficient way to run a country (just imagine a company changing not just the CEO but as well the course every 3 years) - and we obviously all pay for this. Lots of wasted tax payer dollars for never used plans and never completed implementations and lots of wasted opportunities.

This is the reason we need a Centre party in parliament. They can talk with both sides, they can work with both sides, and they can keep the ship on a course which is agreeable to both sides.

That's the reason why I think it would be good for all New Zealanders for a liberal party to get back into parliament - and TOP is the only candidate for this position I currently can see.

Obviously - we can as well keep voting every 3 or 6 years a new government, destroy everything the guys before did and get voted out before the new guys achieve what they say they want.

Not very sensible if you look at it from the outside, but maybe we just enjoy rocking the boat and the thrill to wonder whether it will sink next time we swap from one extreme (like a Labour super majority) to the other.

Every time somebody asks for hard right solutions, they should remember that for each right wing person there is as well a left wing person in the country. Instead of throwing the wheel around every other time we vote, it would be much better to agree on sensible and clever solutions we all can live with. And yes, to achieve that you need to be able to talk with the other block ... and this would be typically the liberals in National (well, whoever is left), the liberals in Labour and to stabilize that you need a Liberal party as anchor in parliament.

This might happen this time or not, but this does not change the fact, that it would be good for the country - for all of us.

Hey, this even could be a reason for tactical voting :) ;

Well NZ First would say that they are that 'centre' party, and then you have Peter Dunnes party, United Future, which styled itself as the centrist 'common sense' party. You always hear Winston talk about 'common sense' as well. Common sense is a political sense is used to describe pragmatism, the ability to work with either side of the political spectrum.

Of course, a party in the centre has no real overriding vision with which to sell itself. It's just a mish-mash of ideas from both right and left, with the exact mixture being poorly defined. And this is why centrist parties tend to attract a low proportion of overall votes. They can't say they stand for 'private ownership and state ownership' because it's a contradiction. They can't say they stand for 'more regulation and less state interference' because once again it's a contradiction. There is nothing to really hang your hat on if you are a centrist. The slogan could be: 'Vote for us, we're milquetoast!'

Parties in the dead centre, attracting anywhere from 5% to 15%, invariably have to go into coalition with somebody, and this is where a new set of problems begin for them. Invariably, their supporters don't think with a hive mind so some will be unhappy with the choice the party leadership has made. At this point, the seeds are sown for support to ebb away. The next issue is that blame & consequence for all the failings of the new government will fall disproportionately on the centrist party. They can easily be pushed under the threshold at the subsequent election, and indeed we have seen this happen to NZ First time and again, and United Future ceased to exist after a brief moment of glory. All that was left was Dunne clinging on for some years in Ohariu due to his personal following, while NZ First is only able to revive its fortunes via Winstons personal following.

So TOP represents a new dawn for the centrist dream, but one which will have to confront the same set of issues. If it can ever get a foothold in Parliament.

[Panda-NZ-]

They can't say they stand for 'private ownership and state ownership' because it's a contradiction. They can't say they stand for 'more regulation and less state interference' because once again it's a contradiction. There is nothing to really hang your hat on if you are a centrist. The slogan could be: 'Vote for us, we're milquetoast!'


Nonsense. We stand for a partial asset sale with the funds used for sensible things that we agree with.. (not money for Nat corporate mates) OR We stand for 'sensible' regulations.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Nonsense. We stand for a partial asset sale with the funds used for sensible things that we agree with.. (not money for Nat corporate mates) OR We stand for 'sensible' regulations.

You identify with TOP these days? :) Last week it was New Zealand first, next week.....who knows(?)

Couldn't help the dig about 'corporate mates' aye. Surprised you didn't work your debunked old chestnut '$20 bucks a week' in there somewhere as well....

Speaking of 'corporate mates'.....

'Energy Minister Megan Woods handed out $68 million worth of corporate welfare payments to major businesses replacing their boilers and heating systems. These businesses are massive, profitable operations. They already have strong financial incentives to improve energy efficiency, and they certainly don't need taxpayer help. The latest announcement saw capsicum grower Southern Paprika get $5 million to install a new biomass boiler. Meat producer ANZCO and textile manufacturer Canterbury Spinners each got more than a million dollars, and DB breweries got $500,000. And here's the shocker: the handouts won’t even reduce New Zealand’s carbon emissions.'

[BlackPeter]

Well NZ First would say that they are that 'centre' party, and then you have Peter Dunnes party, United Future, which styled itself as the centrist 'common sense' party. You always hear Winston talk about 'common sense' as well. Common sense is a political sense is used to describe pragmatism, the ability to work with either side of the political spectrum.

Of course, a party in the centre has no real overriding vision with which to sell itself. It's just a mish-mash of ideas from both right and left, with the exact mixture being poorly defined. And this is why centrist parties tend to attract a low proportion of overall votes. They can't say they stand for 'private ownership and state ownership' because it's a contradiction. They can't say they stand for 'more regulation and less state interference' because once again it's a contradiction. There is nothing to really hang your hat on if you are a centrist. The slogan could be: 'Vote for us, we're milquetoast!'

Parties in the dead centre, attracting anywhere from 5% to 15%, invariably have to go into coalition with somebody, and this is where a new set of problems begin for them. Invariably, their supporters don't think with a hive mind so some will be unhappy with the choice the party leadership has made. At this point, the seeds are sown for support to ebb away. The next issue is that blame & consequence for all the failings of the new government will fall disproportionately on the centrist party. They can easily be pushed under the threshold at the subsequent election, and indeed we have seen this happen to NZ First time and again, and United Future ceased to exist after a brief moment of glory. All that was left was Dunne clinging on for some years in Ohariu due to his personal following, while NZ First is only able to revive its fortunes via Winstons personal following.

So TOP represents a new dawn for the centrist dream, but one which will have to confront the same set of issues. If it can ever get a foothold in Parliament.

Sure - liberal stands for pragmatism and being prepared and able to compromise. Might not sound sexy to somebody who wants everything and that now against strong opposition, but this is the only way things actually get done and survive.

No political extreme government will survive for longer periods in a democracy, and no matter what they have done during their term, they better make sure it was agreed with the other side, or they will tear it down.

I never said being liberal is sexy, but - it allows societies to move ahead instead of ending up in endless infighting.

I never asked or suggested a liberal party should take over government. Not even sure, they would be good doing that, but they are good in moderating and keeping the ship on track. Its a bit like the engine oil for your Ferrari. Clearly - you don't want just engine oil, but if you want to drive the car you need some to go with it.

On a different subject ... NZ First might say what they want, and they may or may not be semi-liberal (though, Winstons typical pre election race baiting is clearly not liberal). The problem with NZ First is, that they are foremost a populist party - not looking for solutions by analysis, but parroting only whatever semi intoxicated people agree on in the countries Friday nights pub rounds. The problem with that is - running a country is a complex job, and similar as I would not allow a random pub round to perform a brain surgery, I would not allow them to control the politics of a country either. Plain dumb.

Populist parties (and they come in all political shades) have a tendency to promote simple sounding solutions to solve complex problems, which do not work. If you want to solve a problem, then I am afraid, they are not your party.

[iceman]

Pretty infantil responses finishing with an apocalyptic warning. Not sure, what you are smoking, but this is quite dumb behaviour if you want people to take you seriously.

While I agree that Labors record is not very good, they still brought us better to the other side of the pandemic than many other governments did that with their citizens. And no, I don't like the racist policies they implemented either, but neither 3 waters nor co-governance for water and health is the end of the world. Sure - they do increase bureaucracy and they insure that some of the warm bodies sitting around the governing boards will have darker skin. Don't tell me though that our previous system to elect e.g. heathboards produced a better result - it was more a random selection of people, and most of them selected either by random or because the voter happened to have heard the name of the person who populated the health boards.

The Greens actually do some good environmental stuff, if it would not be for their Left wing (and nothing to do with Green) socialist policies. But yes, this is a different subject.

There used to be even a time when the Maori party was respectable instead of racist (think Peter Sharples), but sure ... this was the good old times.

While I am sure that a government formed by National in combination with ACT hellbound to cut public services and budgets and a populist Winston First would be different, there is so far no evidence that it would be any better than the alternative.

You must have a look at how the tories used to downrun the British economy - hey, this used to be the 5th strongest economy in the world, and now it is the sick man of Europe. We clearly don't need to rerun the British experiment, do we? The results of a tory govenmnet here won't be better than over there.

So - better hope (and contribute) that the Liberals get enough votes to stabilise the madness coming from both the political left as well as the political right. If you don't support TOP, you are clearly responsible for the misery which is likely to unfold here in NZ in the next 3 years without a political centre party! You have been warned ;) ;

Discl: This post needs to be read in context, it contains irony and is an in-kind response to some previous posts.

Your highlighted part could also read "many other Governments did a better job dealing with the pandemic". The avalanche of anti Labour votes that are coming this election and not counted for in the polls, is the Kiwi expats that were made "persona non grata" by Jacinda's stupid COVID response. In the last few elections, most overseas voting has gone to The Greens and Labour in that order. I will be very surprised if not much of it goes to National or ACT this time, for the exact reason people will never forgive Labour/Jacinda.Mr COVID (Hipkins) for their idiocy. "Be kind", put a "teddy in the window", "spread your legs". Give ma a break !

[Logen Ninefingers]

Sure - liberal stands for pragmatism and being prepared and able to compromise. Might not sound sexy to somebody who wants everything and that now against strong opposition, but this is the only way things actually get done and survive.

No political extreme government will survive for longer periods in a democracy, and no matter what they have done during their term, they better make sure it was agreed with the other side, or they will tear it down.

I never said being liberal is sexy, but - it allows societies to move ahead instead of ending up in endless infighting.

I never asked or suggested a liberal party should take over government. Not even sure, they would be good doing that, but they are good in moderating and keeping the ship on track. Its a bit like the engine oil for your Ferrari. Clearly - you don't want just engine oil, but if you want to drive the car you need some to go with it.

On a different subject ... NZ First might say what they want, and they may or may not be semi-liberal (though, Winstons typical pre election race baiting is clearly not liberal). The problem with NZ First is, that they are foremost a populist party - not looking for solutions by analysis, but parroting only whatever semi intoxicated people agree on in the countries Friday nights pub rounds. The problem with that is - running a country is a complex job, and similar as I would not allow a random pub round to perform a brain surgery, I would not allow them to control the politics of a country either. Plain dumb.

Populist parties (and they come in all political shades) have a tendency to promote simple sounding solutions to solve complex problems, which do not work. If you want to solve a problem, then I am afraid, they are not your party.

What does the term 'liberal' mean to you? The dictionary definition/s of the term range from socially progressive to what we would call 'laissez faire'. Accordingly, it seems the term is quite ill defined in actuality. In Australia the Liberal Party is the closest analogue to the National Party here, while in the US 'liberal' is the term most associated with the left wing Democrats.


liberal
/ˈlɪb(ə)rəl/

adjective
1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
"they have liberal views on divorce"
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

noun
1.
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2.
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
"classical liberals emphasized the right of the individual to make decisions, even if the results dismayed their neighbours or injured themselves"

----

But anyway, 'liberal' clearly does not mean the same thing as 'centrist'.

[BlackPeter]

Your highlighted part could also read "many other Governments did a better job dealing with the pandemic". The avalanche of anti Labour votes that are coming this election and not counted for in the polls, is the Kiwi expats that were made "persona non grata" by Jacinda's stupid COVID response. In the last few elections, most overseas voting has gone to The Greens and Labour in that order. I will be very surprised if not much of it goes to National or ACT this time, for the exact reason people will never forgive Labour/Jacinda.Mr COVID (Hipkins) for their idiocy. "Be kind", put a "teddy in the window", "spread your legs". Give ma a break !

Not quite on subject, but an interesting theory ... and hey, you well might be right in your prediction on overseas voting. Personally I could not see my dying father in late 2021 due to Jacindas travel restrictions (I would have been allowed to go, but not to come back home), so yes, I know what you are talking about.

I didn't say either that Labour did in this area everything right. However - we are one of smaller number of countries with reduced (vs. increased) mortality during the pandemic ... so, clearly - they did not do everything wrong either, but clearly - this had a price many of us had to pay.

I prefer to see the good as well as the bad of everything instead of moving with blinkers into one corner. In general a successful strategy (seeing both sides). Another reason why we need more liberals in parliament (back on subject ... ;) )!

[Logen Ninefingers]

TOP are really trying to buy the youth and the Christchurch vote. That much is apparent.

[fungus pudding]

What does the term 'liberal' mean to you? The dictionary definition/s of the term range from socially progressive to what we would call 'laissez faire'. Accordingly, it seems the term is quite ill defined in actuality. In Australia the Liberal Party is the closest analogue to the National Party here, while in the US 'liberal' is the term most associated with the left wing Democrats.


liberal
/ˈlɪb(ə)rəl/

adjective
1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
"they have liberal views on divorce"
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

noun
1.
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2.
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
"classical liberals emphasized the right of the individual to make decisions, even if the results dismayed their neighbours or injured themselves"

----

But anyway, 'liberal' clearly does not mean the same thing as 'centrist'.

Good post - I've never been able to work out what it means, so avoid the term. If you dig around you'll find different meanings for progressive and conservative as well.

[BlackPeter]

What does the term 'liberal' mean to you? The dictionary definition/s of the term range from socially progressive to what we would call 'laissez faire'. Accordingly, it seems the term is quite ill defined in actuality. In Australia the Liberal Party is the closest analogue to the National Party here, while in the US 'liberal' is the term most associated with the left wing Democrats.


liberal
/ˈlɪb(ə)rəl/

adjective
1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
"they have liberal views on divorce"
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

noun
1.
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2.
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
"classical liberals emphasized the right of the individual to make decisions, even if the results dismayed their neighbours or injured themselves"

----

But anyway, 'liberal' clearly does not mean the same thing as 'centrist'.

OK - sorry for the lack of definition, and I am not sure I can improve on that a lot. However, I can try to explain what I mean with liberal.

Liberals are democrats (not referring to the US Party), standing for and considering the rights of everybody, not just of the bunch who currently happens to have the political majority and choose to abuse their power (as all extremes do). Liberals clearly can't be extreme right or extreme left.

I see liberals as the people who are able to see the benefits as well in right-wing philosophies as well as in left-wing philosophies (and, it might be hard for somebody extreme to imagine, but actually the other side does have their points as well). A liberal would try to merge the best from both worlds (which inevitably requires compromises) and create a solution which stands in time.

Ah yes, and liberals don't act based on some doctrin but based on good arguments, common sense and considering as well the rights and interests of the other side. Just good common sense - try to find a win-win instead of pushing your current political power down everybody's throat.

Not even sure I would personally call me politically "liberal" (I am a conservative Greenie with a social conscience and the understanding that you need a healthy economy to be able to pay for everything else) and I rarely voted liberal in my life (but I did sometimes), but given that on this very forum some people called me: Leftie, extreme left, left wing and similar, while others called me: extreme right or right-wing, might give one an indication where I stand. Given that there are clearly people to my left (they call me right-wing) as well as to my right (they call me left-wing) I clearly must stand in the middle ;);

And no, I am certainly not subscribing to "Laissez faire", unless the behaviour in question would not impact on other peoples rights.

Does this help?

[Logen Ninefingers]

OK - sorry for the lack of definition, and I am not sure I can improve on that a lot. However, I can try to explain what I mean with liberal.

Liberals are democrats (not referring to the US Party), standing for and considering the rights of everybody, not just of the bunch who currently happens to have the political majority and choose to abuse their power (as all extremes do). Liberals clearly can't be extreme right or extreme left.

I see liberals as the people who are able to see the benefits as well in right-wing philosophies as well as in left-wing philosophies (and, it might be hard for somebody extreme to imagine, but actually the other side does have their points as well). A liberal would try to merge the best from both worlds (which inevitably requires compromises) and create a solution which stands in time.

Ah yes, and liberals don't act based on some doctrin but based on good arguments, common sense and considering as well the rights and interests of the other side. Just good common sense - try to find a win-win instead of pushing your current political power down everybody's throat.

Not even sure I would personally call me politically "liberal" (I am a conservative Greenie with a social conscience and the understanding that you need a healthy economy to be able to pay for everything else) and I rarely voted liberal in my life (but I did sometimes), but given that on this very forum some people called me: Leftie, extreme left, left wing and similar, while others called me: extreme right or right-wing, might give one an indication where I stand. Given that there are clearly people to my left (they call me right-wing) as well as to my right (they call me left-wing) I clearly must stand in the middle ;);

And no, I am certainly not subscribing to "Laissez faire", unless the behaviour in question would not impact on other peoples rights.

Does this help?

As clear as mud. 🙂

[iceman]

Nonsense. We stand for a partial asset sale with the funds used for sensible things that we agree with.. (not money for Nat corporate mates) OR We stand for 'sensible' regulations.

Not even Winston talks about taking the power generations back into full Government ownership, after the very successful mixed ownership model implemented by John Key and voted for by the public !

[Panda-NZ-]

TOP are really trying to buy the youth and the Christchurch vote. That much is apparent.

On their front page it says they want to ban vaping.

NZ's youth move to cities, there's no economic future for them in a national electorate.

[Logen Ninefingers]

On their front page it says they want to ban vaping.

NZ's youth move to cities, there's no economic future for them in a national electorate.

Very insightful.

[Baa_Baa]

Nonsense. We stand for a partial asset sale with the funds used for sensible things that we agree with.. (not money for Nat corporate mates) OR We stand for 'sensible' regulations.

Who exactly is "we". Fess up china kiwi, we need to know who and what you stand for, you've been flip flopping all over the place for years, so who specifically is it?

[Baa_Baa]

Not even Winston talks about taking the power generations back into full Government ownership, after the very successful mixed ownership model implemented by John Key and voted for by the public !

And it was a great investment for the public who got into it at the time, despite the Labour and Unions sowing the panic at the time and telling us it was a very bad investment, which it turns out that it wasn't.

Fact is, Labour and the Unions really have absolutely no idea about whether or how people can improve their lives by growing their wealth over time, beyond what they earn. They are the antithesis to investment and for that reason, I will have nothing to do with them, ever.

[dln]

A year old now, but gives some perspective on some of their positions.
Apologies for linking to Karen Plunket.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6yXni1LQRnk&pp=ygURdG9wIHBhcnR5IHBsdW5rZXQ%3D

[Balance]

And it was a great investment for the public who got into it at the time, despite the Labour and Unions sowing the panic at the time and telling us it was a very bad investment, which it turns out that it wasn't.

Fact is, Labour and the Unions really have absolutely no idea about whether or how people can improve their lives by growing their wealth over time, beyond what they earn. They are the antithesis to investment and for that reason, I will have nothing to do with them, ever.

Labour and their union supporters - socialists and communists who want NZ to become the Soviet Union.

[BlackPeter]

OK, back to The Opportunities party, shall we?

We had earlier a lot of discussion about polls. Here is a cluttergraph of all the polls they had since 2020 - and for my eye (the arrow is handdrawn by me) does the trend clearly go into the right direction, doesn't it?

14766

For subscribers of the businessdek - if you go into this (probably paywalled) article:
https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/politics/election-2023-the-centreright-bloc-leads-as-nz-first-rises and scroll down to the polls, you can look up the results for any party you are interested in ... and it shows you for every dot as well which poll it was (if you hover over it).

[Logen Ninefingers]

OK, back to The Opportunities party, shall we?

We had earlier a lot of discussion about polls. Here is a cluttergraph of all the polls they had since 2020 - and for my eye (the arrow is handdrawn by me) does the trend clearly go into the right direction, doesn't it?

14766

For subscribers of the businessdek - if you go into this (probably paywalled) article:
https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/politics/election-2023-the-centreright-bloc-leads-as-nz-first-rises and scroll down to the polls, you can look up the results for any party you are interested in ... and it shows you for every dot as well which poll it was (if you hover over it).

On track to hit 4% in 2026 if they keep going up at that rate.

[BlackPeter]

On track to hit 4% in 2026 if they keep going up at that rate.

Sure - a linear extrapolation would give you 4.5% .... but hey - it might be exponential growth.
And a recent Roy Morgan poll returned already 4% - what if the poll on election day returns 5%?

Neither the Green party nor ACT did just grow linear, didn't they? It is enough if the politicians in power just annoy the electorate enough - and if it is really an ACT/NZ First/ National government running ACT's austerity policies, than I am sure they will boost the votes for any party not in government.

Better not take the risk and get Raf Manji now instead of Peters at the table.

[Azz]

Sure - a linear extrapolation would give you 4.5% .... but hey - it might be exponential growth.
And a recent Roy Morgan poll returned already 4% - what if the poll on election day returns 5%?

Neither the Green party nor ACT did just grow linear, didn't they? It is enough if the politicians in power just annoy the electorate enough - and if it is really an ACT/NZ First/ National government running ACT's austerity policies, than I am sure they will boost the votes for any party not in government.

Better not take the risk and get Raf Manji now instead of Peters at the table.

This whole TOP thing is a delusion. Wouldn't it make more sense just to vote for National or Labour? Those are the two parties likely to win the seat in question; and people will not only use their electorate vote for TOP, they will probably use their list vote for TOP as well. What an incredible risk for the major (and minor) parties to lose list votes if they get involved in any of this TOP nonsense.

[Logen Ninefingers]

This whole TOP thing is a delusion. Wouldn't it make more sense just to vote for National or Labour? Those are the two parties likely to win the seat in question; and people will not only use their electorate vote for TOP, they will probably use their list vote for TOP as well. What an incredible risk for the major (and minor) parties to lose list votes if they get involved in any of this TOP nonsense.

I think TOP may be a good option for people who don't have a clue who they should vote for. Not sure how many of those types are around but they can't do much harm through voting for a party who are unlikely to win an electorate seat or get over the treshold.

[Azz]

I think TOP may be a good option for people who don't have a clue who they should vote for. Not sure how many of those types are around but they can't do much harm through voting for a party who are unlikely to win an electorate seat or get over the treshold.

Good point. And TOP should focus their campaigning around that: "Don't know who to vote for? Vote for us!"

[justakiwi]

Given that there are a lot of people this time round, who still do not know who to vote for, that would actually be pretty beneficial. And yes, I know you were being sarcastic.


Good point. And TOP should focus their campaigning around that: "Don't know who to vote for? Vote for us!"

[Azz]

Given that there are a lot of people this time round, who still do not know who to vote for, that would actually be pretty beneficial. And yes, I know you were being sarcastic.

"The party you vote for when you don't know who to vote for!" :-)

[Getty]

This Top thread has gained a lot of traction, maybe because they have a charismatic leader.

If the lost sheep are looking for a new paddock to graze, perhaps they could check out the grass at NZ Loyal party.

1 % transaction tax will excite share traders won't it?

[Getty]

I'm surprised to see some posters suggest Top as a viable coalition partner for National.

I haven't updated myself on Top policy since Gareth
Morgan's days, but they were more left than Labour.

Am I missing something?

A U turn?

[Azz]

I'm surprised to see some posters suggest Top as a viable coalition partner for National.

I haven't updated myself on Top policy since Gareth
Morgan's days, but they were more left than Labour.

Am I missing something?

A U turn?

No change in them at all. They are definitely a Left party (not centre-left either).

[Logen Ninefingers]

The more new parties appear in our midst, the more confused some will feel....

"Yeepers, who do I vote for?! TOP? Labour? Green? Leighton Butler Party? ACT? Freedom NZ? NZ Loyal? Loyal Freedom NZ? Values NZ? NZ Values? Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party? Aotearoa Legalise Cannibals Party? Te Pati Maori? National? United Communists of Aotearoa Party? New Conservative Party? Nude Conservatives Party?.....HELP!!!!"

[Getty]

The more new parties appear in our midst, the more confused some will feel....

"Yeepers, who do I vote for?! TOP? Labour? Green? Leighton Butler Party? ACT? Freedom NZ? NZ Loyal? Loyal Freedom NZ? Values NZ? NZ Values? Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party? Aotearoa Legalise Cannibals Party? Te Pati Maori? National? United Communists of Aotearoa Party? New Conservative Party? Nude Conservatives Party?.....HELP!!!!"

Oi, Logen, you have missed out NZF with Winston and Shane.

You naughty boy!

[Getty]

That legalise cannibals Party should eat out a place in history!

[justakiwi]

This week's election poll is here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12754-POLL-New-poll-2-weeks-till-the-election

[BlackPeter]

I'm surprised to see some posters suggest Top as a viable coalition partner for National.

I haven't updated myself on Top policy since Gareth
Morgan's days, but they were more left than Labour.

Am I missing something?

A U turn?

You would want to enlighten us how you consider TOP as left from Labour?

Did you ever read any of the relevant programs or do you just love to talk about stuff you don't know about?

[Getty]

You would want to enlighten us how you consider TOP as left from Labour?

Did you ever read any of the relevant programs or do you just love to talk about stuff you don't know about?

As usual BlackPeter considers his self exalted wisdom to be superior to anyone else.

The answer to your question is in my post, and the floor is open to you to provide some enlightenment.

[BlackPeter]

As usual BlackPeter considers his self exalted wisdom to be superior to anyone else.

The answer to your question is in my post, and the floor is open to you to provide some enlightenment.

Always good for a dumb personal attack, aren't you?

You stated that TOP is left of Labour and you didn't provide any evidence for this claim.

Its not my job to prove your claim ...

[Azz]

More negative Reputation from BlackPeter. You know what you are, BlackPeter? An absolute tosser.

[Azz]

Always good for a dumb personal attack, aren't you?

You are a hypocrite. You specialize in personal attacks - often sent directly via Reputation comments.

[justakiwi]

And more often than not, you deserve them.


You are a hypocrite. You specialize in personal attacks - often sent directly via Reputation comments.

[Azz]

And more often than not, you deserve them.

Oh protect precious BlackPeter!

[Logen Ninefingers]

Before he ingratiated himself into the leadership at 'TOP', Raf Manji ran as an Independent in Ilam in 2017.

https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-press/20170801/281745564465001

[dln]

You really are an Azz.

[Getty]

You couldn"t help yourself could you BlackPeter.

A negative rep to me for your perceived aggrievement.

Go and bite your bum!

You won't like your rotten taste, but at least it will give you something to get your teeth into, rather than attacking posters here.

[Azz]

You couldn"t help yourself could you BlackPeter.

A negative rep to me for your perceived aggrievement.

Go and bite your bum!

You won't like your rotten taste, but at least it will give you something to get your teeth into, rather than attacking posters here.

BlackPeter: a contemptible person aka total knob.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Azz and Getty will both report to the headmasters office to receive their mandatory canings.

[Azz]

Azz and Getty will both report to the headmasters office to receive their mandatory canings.

Is the headmistress not available?

[Azz]

Before he ingratiated himself into the leadership at 'TOP', Raf Manji ran as an Independent in Ilam in 2017.

https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-press/20170801/281745564465001

It seems to me that it's not the "TOP Party" but the "Raf Manji Party".

[Logen Ninefingers]

It seems to me that it's not the "TOP Party" but the "Raf Manji Party".

He's certainly the TOP dog.

[Azz]

He's certainly the TOP dog.

Raf Manji Party ... RMP ... Risk Management Program

[Getty]

Azz and Getty will both report to the headmasters office to receive their mandatory canings.


Had many in the past, that helped shape me into the nice chap l am today.

[Getty]

Is the headmistress not available?

Lol.

Hoping for a B & D session?