PDA

View Full Version : If National wins ...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

nextbigthing
17-09-2014, 01:01 PM
NBT, you are not being penalised. Only a small percentage of your income would be taxed at 39% in most cases. Only a small percentage of that extra amount would be paid to beneficiaries and for topups. The rest goes on roading (National's favourite expense) and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc. Labour have a policy to ensure that employers decrease their tendency to get the taxpayers to subsidise their cheaper workers. It's called increasing the minimum pay scale by law.

Musicians are taxed by pubs, and get the remainder of their fee in-hand after the gig.

It would be a dull NZ if, when you went into town of a Friday evening, there were no live bands anywhere, just discos and karaoke, or music channels on a TV screen. Part of the problem is that nightclubs get kickstarted from say 11pm onwards, with many patrons already boozed up on cheap supermarket alcohol. They need a lot of patrons buying $20 average a night, to cover their staff costs and weekly overheads, let alone a band. We should all be happy to pay a cover charge, and then everyone gets what they want.

el Z, If National want to build infrastructure and can do it for 33% tax instead of 39% then that sounds like a good deal. So the rest is Labour deciding 'what's fair' and the whole idea of them deciding what's fair isn't fair!!! If National spend the rest on hospitals and schools as you say, that's probably fine by 95% on Nzers.

I see what you're saying about minimum wage reducing taxpayer support - but it doesn't add up economically. I know DC pointed at some studies claiming it's not true, but almost every single economist argues it is true. And just apply some logic, do you think people would hire a worker for 5c an hour? Do you think they'd hire one for $1000 an hour? Of course the rate you pay someone affects job losses/creation. Minimum wage increase cannot be done by the stroke of a pen. An entry level economics paper at Uni will demostrate this. So that's unfortunately a myth. $18 would be great, don't get me wrong.

Regarding Musicians, yes NZ would be dull if you couldn't see live music at the weekend. But that's a hobby for people. Don't tax me 39% so people can enjoy their hobby. I like aviation. How would you like it if you were taxed 42% so that I could enjoy cheaper flying at the weekends subsidised by you? Sure it's not a hobby for the musicians, but once again, they have a choice!!! Don't tax me more so they can choose to be musicians!!!

Interesting you bring up cover charges at pubs. I completely agree that's a great way to do it. Musician gets paid more and people only pay if they want music. But that is very very interesting, because (please keep an open mind on this) - the solution you have just come up with is user pays! Freedom of choice and the individual. That is a fundamental point of the centre right - I hope from this you see that the National way of doing it isn't that bad! Tax only what we have to for schools, hospitals, those who can't help themselves etc and then let people decide what they want to do with their money and lives etc.

Yes there's a place for Government, but not for a Government telling us how to live. National provides the balance between protecting those who need help and providing services like hospitals, but not socially engineering. Labour tinkers with society, ACT probably doesn't have enough of a safety net. National is the happy medium.

westerly
17-09-2014, 01:08 PM
That doesn't add much to the debate westerly. What are your credible thoughts on it?

Equality at its basic would mean a level playing field for all. Therefore I suggest everybody starts off with nothing. At eighteen after an education provided free of charge by the state everybody is turned loose into the world with nothing. That is true freedom to become whatever you want on your own efforts. Obviously ridiculous. The playing field is not level, which is why I disagree with libertarian and far right beliefs,
A tax rate of 39c on income over $140,000 is not unreasonable given the big earners in a country where the average wage is $50,000 have many opportunities to reduce there tax bill by legal means.
National s 2000 more doctors is somewhat suspect seeing only 165 graduated last year. Most have probably come from overseas. As for the 150,000 or so jobs created there is no mention of how many have been lost.
National have increased taxes by subterfuge. GST, petrol tax, {and another 3c next year plus gst} charging more for various services etc
A measly 3c increase is hardly going to send the wealthy to poor street. The possible introduction of CGT. has reduced the anti tax lobby to near tears given the reaction. Most will not be effected.
However the best reason to vote against National is the their methods to deal with opposition exposed over the last few weeks.

westerly

fungus pudding
17-09-2014, 01:30 PM
el Z, If National want to build infrastructure and can do it for 33% tax instead of 39% then that sounds like a good deal. So the rest is Labour deciding 'what's fair' and the whole idea of them deciding what's fair isn't fair!!! If National spend the rest on hospitals and schools as you say, that's probably fine by 95% on Nzers.

I see what you're saying about minimum wage reducing taxpayer support - but it doesn't add up economically. I know DC pointed at some studies claiming it's not true, but almost every single economist argues it is true. And just apply some logic, do you think people would hire a worker for 5c an hour? Do you think they'd hire one for $1000 an hour? Of course the rate you pay someone affects job losses/creation. Minimum wage increase cannot be done by the stroke of a pen. An entry level economics paper at Uni will demostrate this. So that's unfortunately a myth. $18 would be great, don't get me wrong.

Regarding Musicians, yes NZ would be dull if you couldn't see live music at the weekend. But that's a hobby for people. Don't tax me 39% so people can enjoy their hobby. I like aviation. How would you like it if you were taxed 42% so that I could enjoy cheaper flying at the weekends subsidised by you? Sure it's not a hobby for the musicians, but once again, they have a choice!!! Don't tax me more so they can choose to be musicians!!!

Interesting you bring up cover charges at pubs. I completely agree that's a great way to do it. Musician gets paid more and people only pay if they want music. But that is very very interesting, because (please keep an open mind on this) - the solution you have just come up with is user pays! Freedom of choice and the individual. That is a fundamental point of the centre right - I hope from this you see that the National way of doing it isn't that bad! Tax only what we have to for schools, hospitals, those who can't help themselves etc and then let people decide what they want to do with their money and lives etc.

Yes there's a place for Government, but not for a Government telling us how to live. National provides the balance between protecting those who need help and providing services like hospitals, but not socially engineering. Labour tinkers with society, ACT probably doesn't have enough of a safety net. National is the happy medium.

Hard to disagree with any of that, but it's worth pointing out that 33% tax rate will probably produce more for the govt. coffers than 39%. Remember there are always two rates of tax that produce the same revenue.

BlackPeter
17-09-2014, 01:50 PM
NBT, you are not being penalised. Only a small percentage of your income would be taxed at 39% in most cases. Only a small percentage of that extra amount would be paid to beneficiaries and for topups. The rest goes on roading (National's favourite expense) and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc. Labour have a policy to ensure that employers decrease their tendency to get the taxpayers to subsidise their cheaper workers. It's called increasing the minimum pay scale by law.

Musicians are taxed by pubs, and get the remainder of their fee in-hand after the gig.

It would be a dull NZ if, when you went into town of a Friday evening, there were no live bands anywhere, just discos and karaoke, or music channels on a TV screen. Part of the problem is that nightclubs get kickstarted from say 11pm onwards, with many patrons already boozed up on cheap supermarket alcohol. They need a lot of patrons buying $20 average a night, to cover their staff costs and weekly overheads, let alone a band. We should all be happy to pay a cover charge, and then everyone gets what they want.

EZ - just wondering - didn't you forget to declare your interest?

Sure, you might be oneof these underpaid musicians (I know, many are) or a Friday night pub goer (and nothing wrong with either), but there are lots of people who are neither musicians, nor do they enjoy to spend their nights in bars consuming (often too much) alcohol and listening to (so called) life music.

Why do you ask the others to pay for your hobby? Even if they are the so called Rich? You don't pay for theirs, either.

I appreciate that it is the Labour way to support groups who for whatever reason (some justified, some not) don't pay for their own maintenance, but taxing the Rich to subsidize the Friday evening booze entertainment goes a bit far, doesn't it?

Again - nothing wrong, if you like to go out on Friday nights (be it as musician or as drinker/listener), but I propose you pay your own way, if that's what you are after.

slimwin
17-09-2014, 02:09 PM
My hobby is drinking beer. Any takers to subsidise my hobby with a cover charge at the door of a pub? I can be very entertaining :)

nextbigthing
17-09-2014, 02:43 PM
That’s 3,289 more nurses, 1,589 more doctors and 1,000 fewer health managers and administrators since 2008. Source: National Party Health Policy.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/issues_that_matter_-_health.html

You night not like the source of the information but, the content is important.

1589 more doctors under a system with less tax. Safety net in tact. Less Government forcing me to spend my money on groups it feels are important. Perfect. National is the happy medium.

fungus pudding
17-09-2014, 02:54 PM
That’s 3,289 more nurses, 1,589 more doctors and 1,000 fewer health managers and administrators since 2008. Source: National Party Health Policy.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/issues_that_matter_-_health.html

You night not like the source of the information but, the content is important.

1589 more doctors under a system with less tax. Safety net in tact. Less Government forcing me to spend my money on groups it feels are important. Perfect. National is the happy medium.

Well you'll be pleased with tonight's Roy Morgan poll. National on 46.5% could govern with 1 Act, 1 United future and 2 Maori party. No need for Winston to 'help'. My fingers are crossed for that result. Nowif Te Tai Tokorau could vote in Labour's Kelvin Davis, even though Labour don't want him to win, that would rid us of Kim Dotcom, Minto, Harre etc once and for all. That would be the perfect outcome.

fungus pudding
17-09-2014, 02:56 PM
That’s 3,289 more nurses, 1,589 more doctors and 1,000 fewer health managers and administrators since 2008. Source: National Party Health Policy.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/issues_that_matter_-_health.html

You night not like the source of the information but, the content is important.

1589 more doctors under a system with less tax. Safety net in tact. Less Government forcing me to spend my money on groups it feels are important. Perfect. National is the happy medium.

Well you'll be pleased with tonight's Roy Morgan poll. National on 46.5% could govern with 1 Act, 1 United future and 2 Maori party. No need for Winston to 'help'. My fingers are crossed for that result. Nowif Te Tai Tokorau could vote in Labour's Kelvin Davis, even though Labour don't want him to win, that would rid us of Kim Dotcom, Minto, Harre etc once and for all. That would be the perfect outcome.

elZorro
17-09-2014, 03:29 PM
EZ - just wondering - didn't you forget to declare your interest?

Sure, you might be oneof these underpaid musicians (I know, many are) or a Friday night pub goer (and nothing wrong with either), but there are lots of people who are neither musicians, nor do they enjoy to spend their nights in bars consuming (often too much) alcohol and listening to (so called) life music.

Why do you ask the others to pay for your hobby? Even if they are the so called Rich? You don't pay for theirs, either.

I appreciate that it is the Labour way to support groups who for whatever reason (some justified, some not) don't pay for their own maintenance, but taxing the Rich to subsidize the Friday evening booze entertainment goes a bit far, doesn't it?

Again - nothing wrong, if you like to go out on Friday nights (be it as musician or as drinker/listener), but I propose you pay your own way, if that's what you are after.

BP, I was a hanger-on in a garage band years ago, but I have a relative who has kept going through the years part-time, and I've seen how hard it is. At the end of a working week, or at family events, there is little that beats a live band, if they are competent.

While some of you may make snide remarks that cover charges are user-pays in action, the fact is that pubs are too scared to charge a cover fee for a no-name band, in case they lose trade to others. There isn't enough cash flowing around in general.

For many other services that people might want in their lives, there is no fair way of making it user-pays, because some have more needs than others, at each moment in time. That's why we have insurance, but insurance won't pay for roading and bridges, hospitals, schools, that we on average, have a need for. So don't put those blinkers on too heavily, ACT policies are unworkable.

Can I just point out yet again, that one large group of business owners, who own large tracts of the country, generate much of our export goods, buy a lot of the new vehicles, and tend to become millionaires at retirement, pay only a tiny proportion of the annual income taxes (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5017279/Dairy-farmers-paying-no-tax), considering their annual turnover. CGT? No thanks, they say. And they're lobbying like mad.

Also destined to remain an issue while National is in power, manufacturing as a whole is on the skids, 42,000 jobs lost there since 2008 (http://campaign.labour.org.nz/manufacturing), the sort of jobs that school leavers can walk into and earn an income. Our power consumption is dropping or holding, because the manufacturers have backed off. National's policy settings didn't help, in fact they pushed the process along.

elZorro
17-09-2014, 09:13 PM
Following on from this band theme, is National's purchase of an Eminem-like track for use in a TV advert (http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/beatbox-wants-eminem-esque-track-deleted-2014091716). The ad was something like this.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37vxczp5hwY)
APRA are the usual agency for handling the use of songs by artists, and you often have to get the permission of the performers and the writer of the lyrics to use it in the particular way, and also pay a fee. This can take months to organise. The more widespread the use, the higher the fee.

If you even play a radio in a retail space, you are supposed to pay a fee to APRA.

In this case, and even after falling foul of the rules in previous campaigns, the National Party (who include Steven Joyce, ex radio stations owner) and their agents deliberately chose a backing track that was passing off Eminem's track, because they could save a lot of money and yet get the same effect, if they could just get away with it. Some muso in a studio had strummed out most of the same Eminem chords, put the track up for sale on a website, and was making cash out of it. Most of the cheaper tracks like this are more original, they'd have needed to look hard to find it. It turns out Eminem would never have given them permission for the real track.

Just like National to take the easy way out, and disregard musicians. As a govt, they don't mind doling out millions to big business, while SMEs are shut down.

Now it looks like that copied track has been deleted from available tracks on the achive, pending a lawsuit.

Here's an old music video that was penned when Robert Muldoon was in power.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/there-is-no-depression-in-new-zealand-1981

fungus pudding
17-09-2014, 11:36 PM
Following on from this band theme, is National's purchase of an Eminem-like track for use in a TV advert (http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/beatbox-wants-eminem-esque-track-deleted-2014091716). The ad was something like this.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37vxczp5hwY)
APRA are the usual agency for handling the use of songs by artists, and you often have to get the permission of the performers and the writer of the lyrics to use it in the particular way, and also pay a fee. This can take months to organise. The more widespread the use, the higher the fee.

If you even play a radio in a retail space, you are supposed to pay a fee to APRA.

In this case, and even after falling foul of the rules in previous campaigns, the National Party (who include Steven Joyce, ex radio stations owner) and their agents deliberately chose a backing track that was passing off Eminem's track, because they could save a lot of money and yet get the same effect, if they could just get away with it. Some muso in a studio had strummed out most of the same Eminem chords, put the track up for sale on a website, and was making cash out of it. Most of the cheaper tracks like this are more original, they'd have needed to look hard to find it. It turns out Eminem would never have given them permission for the real track.

Just like National to take the easy way out, and disregard musicians. As a govt, they don't mind doling out millions to big business, while SMEs are shut down.

Now it looks like that copied track has been deleted from available tracks on the achive, pending a lawsuit.

Here's an old music video that was penned when Robert Muldoon was in power.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/there-is-no-depression-in-new-zealand-1981

It's getting to you eZ. It will soon be over.

slimwin
17-09-2014, 11:57 PM
Did you get permission to use that EZ? :)

minimoke
18-09-2014, 06:40 AM
Following on from this band theme, is National's purchase of an Eminem-like track for use in a TV advert (http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/beatbox-wants-eminem-esque-track-deleted-2014091716). The ad was something like this.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37vxczp5hwY)
APRA are the usual agency for handling the use of songs by artists, and you often have to get the permission of the performers and the writer of the lyrics to use it in the particular way, and also pay a fee. This can take months to organise. The more widespread the use, the higher the fee.

If you even play a radio in a retail space, you are supposed to pay a fee to APRA.
And I find some irony in the fact that it was National that passed the Skynet legislation. Adding to the irony is U2"s greatest spam attempt by sending an album to ITunes accounts without the end user paying a royalty. Now there's a statement on how musicians value their talent. And we have a government that supports the uploading of private information by a third party and justifies it by saying "Its not us"

elZorro
18-09-2014, 06:40 AM
Did you get permission to use that EZ? :)

I didn't create the track or the video, it's on the web, has been for weeks.

FP: no real rebuttal of the content of my posts, I see. Most of you National voters don't have a leg to stand on. What you are voting for is the status quo - let's not move the country forward at the partial cost of anyone who has already made it.

craic
18-09-2014, 06:45 AM
Labour do not have to worry about using the Dead March on Saturday as they march off into the night - it has been out of copyright for years. And Hone Harawira will probably be available to play the corpse.

nextbigthing
18-09-2014, 06:55 AM
I didn't create the track or the video, it's on the web, has been for weeks.

FP: no real rebuttal of the content of my posts, I see. Most of you National voters don't have a leg to stand on. What you are voting for is the status quo - let's not move the country forward at the partial cost of anyone who has already made it.

Disappointing el Z. I thought you might have been better than this.

minimoke
18-09-2014, 07:00 AM
Just like National to take the easy way out, and disregard musicians. As a govt, they don't mind doling out millions to big business, while SMEs are shut down.

Now it looks like that copied track has been deleted from available tracks on the achive, pending a lawsuit.

Here's an old music video that was penned when Robert Muldoon was in power.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/there-is-no-depression-in-new-zealand-1981
Another reflective link is this one. Worth reading the opening credits before settling into a bit of nostalgia.
http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/blerta-revisited-2001. In case you miss it - these guys worked for 5 years with no pay - have a look at how their currency is defined.

minimoke
18-09-2014, 07:00 AM
Just like National to take the easy way out, and disregard musicians. As a govt, they don't mind doling out millions to big business, while SMEs are shut down.

Now it looks like that copied track has been deleted from available tracks on the achive, pending a lawsuit.

Here's an old music video that was penned when Robert Muldoon was in power.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/there-is-no-depression-in-new-zealand-1981
Another reflective link is this one. Worth reading the opening credits before settling into a bit of nostalgia.
http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/blerta-revisited-2001. In case you miss it - these guys worked for 5 years with no pay - have a look at how their currency is defined.

iceman
18-09-2014, 07:05 AM
EZ this http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10511913/Voting-rort-allegations-with-intellectually-disabled is happening in your parts of the wood. Sad how low people can go. Vote positive ? Hand me another Tui !

elZorro
18-09-2014, 08:42 AM
EZ this http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10511913/Voting-rort-allegations-with-intellectually-disabled is happening in your parts of the wood. Sad how low people can go. Vote positive ? Hand me another Tui !

Iceman, I read the article this morning in the Waikato Times. It's a Fairfax publication. The same paper has deliberately minimised the exposure of a Labour candidate all through the campaign. The editor of the paper is notably right-wing. I can only assume that the caregivers at IHC have noted over the years that a Labour government provides superior funding and backup for their operation, which in turn directly helps their clients.

On the other side of the coin, National has paid a "slick PR firm" (which might or might not include the expensive and ruthless neo-liberals Crosby-Textor) to compile ads and generate sound bites which at the best are fibs, and in some cases are outright lies.

Some of these are below.

"Labour left the country in a mess"
"We have created 150,000 jobs"
"A Labour coalition would be a five-headed beast"
"Keep the team that's working"

Once these are splashed across all the media channels, they are trying to brainwash not just a few people, but millions.

blackcap
18-09-2014, 09:28 AM
Iceman, I read the article this morning in the Waikato Times. It's a Fairfax publication.

Confirmation bias showing through on both sides. On Whaleoil most commentators hate Fairfax with a passion and call it a lefty propaganda machine. Whilst the standard say exactly the opposite about Fairfax. Go figure.

elZorro
18-09-2014, 10:07 AM
Confirmation bias showing through on both sides. On Whaleoil most commentators hate Fairfax with a passion and call it a lefty propaganda machine. Whilst the standard say exactly the opposite about Fairfax. Go figure.

You shouldn't believe all you read on Whaleoil BC. Maybe Cam Slater has a beef with someone at Fairfax, they don't take him seriously enough. Or he's trying to get them to be more right-wing than they are already. Where does their advertising come from in general, big business, or workers and unemployed? Follow the money, and their shareholders.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/gina-rinehart-eyes-fairfax-takeover/story-e6frg996-1226995390924?nk=d41d270c7e4ece9565c4eb692dddabc0# mm-premium

I see that Cuzzie is still banned. Belgarion still has his posts intact, and is not banned.

I for one, really miss Belge's posts. Come back!

blackcap
18-09-2014, 11:50 AM
You shouldn't believe all you read on Whaleoil BC. Maybe Cam Slater has a beef with someone at Fairfax, they don't take him seriously enough. !

I don't El Zorro, but the readership of Whaleoil is increasing by the day and it is the number one blog in NZ by a country mile. But it was the commentators on the blog that were saying Fairfax is a lefty spout machine. Just like the commentators say the opposite at the standard. Studies have shown that confirmation bias is prevalent and there is little we can do about it but its good to know it exists. The fact two polarising sites can have the same view of an outfit such as Fairfax (they both think that Fairfax are biased) tends to support the existence of this "confirmation bias"

elZorro
18-09-2014, 12:40 PM
I don't El Zorro, but the readership of Whaleoil is increasing by the day and it is the number one blog in NZ by a country mile. But it was the commentators on the blog that were saying Fairfax is a lefty spout machine. Just like the commentators say the opposite at the standard. Studies have shown that confirmation bias is prevalent and there is little we can do about it but its good to know it exists. The fact two polarising sites can have the same view of an outfit such as Fairfax (they both think that Fairfax are biased) tends to support the existence of this "confirmation bias"

Bet you didn't read "Dirty Politics" BC. Many of the forthright commentators on Whaleoil are his mates, and/or are paid bloggers, putting across an agreed point of view. I'm not paid to write anything, like Cameron Slater is. NZ is so brainwashed, the Hager book may have actually helped people like Slater and John Key, in the medium term.

BlackPeter
18-09-2014, 01:26 PM
Bet you didn't read "Dirty Politics" BC. Many of the forthright commentators on Whaleoil are his mates, and/or are paid bloggers, putting across an agreed point of view. I'm not paid to write anything, like Cameron Slater is. NZ is so brainwashed, the Hager book may have actually helped people like Slater and John Key, in the medium term.

EZ, I hear what you say, but why would you think that Nicky Hager would have any more credibility than many of the whaleoil contributors? Not sure, whether you can have negative credibility - and in my books both sides deserve a big ZERO.

Do you prefer Nicky Hager because he is slinging the mud into the center / right corner of the political field? Remember, Nicky Hager is (as is Cameron Slater) nothing more than an overpaid biassed professional mud slinger who does not care whether the dirt he is throwing around is true, false or stolen.

nextbigthing
18-09-2014, 01:51 PM
Here's an idea. National and Labour go into coalition together. They find as much middle ground as possible and then the majority of nzers get what they voted for and avoid the smaller parties holding them to ransom.
Regarding tax, the rate could be optional, eg minimum top rate of 33% with an optional rate of 39% or more for those who feel this is the right thing to do.
We could call the coalition Lanal. Or perhaps Natbour might be better.

Minerbarejet
18-09-2014, 02:15 PM
Here's an idea. National and Labour go into coalition together. They find as much middle ground as possible and then the majority of nzers get what they voted for and avoid the smaller parties holding them to ransom.
Regarding tax, the rate could be optional, eg minimum top rate of 33% with an optional rate of 39% or more for those who feel this is the right thing to do.
We could call the coalition Lanal. Or perhaps Natbour might be better.With all the spying going on perhaps Blunt would be more appropriate.:)

But thats just a conservative view.

slimwin
18-09-2014, 02:16 PM
Now wouldn't that be utopia. While it lasted...

blackcap
18-09-2014, 02:16 PM
Here's an idea. National and Labour go into coalition together. They find as much middle ground as possible and then the majority of nzers get what they voted for and avoid the smaller parties holding them to ransom.
Regarding tax, the rate could be optional, eg minimum top rate of 33% with an optional rate of 39% or more for those who feel this is the right thing to do.
We could call the coalition Lanal. Or perhaps Natbour might be better.

I suggested such a coalition a while ago. Would keep NZ on track without being beholden to the fringe lunacy that MMP seems to offer up. NZ politics alas is still in its infancy and as such will not accept such a proposal. Such coalitions do however work well over in Europe.

fungus pudding
18-09-2014, 03:17 PM
I suggested such a coalition a while ago. Would keep NZ on track without being beholden to the fringe lunacy that MMP seems to offer up. NZ politics alas is still in its infancy and as such will not accept such a proposal. Such coalitions do however work well over in Europe.

At least it would allow Labour a more dignified death.

iceman
18-09-2014, 03:30 PM
With all the spying going on perhaps Blunt would be more appropriate.:)

But thats just a conservative view.

I think the good people of Sydney are quite happy today that they have been under "mass surveillance" and "spied" on !

fungus pudding
18-09-2014, 03:42 PM
I think the good people of Sydney are quite happy today that they have been under "mass surveillance" and "spied" on !

Yep and they'll be stepping it well up - this episode is far from a one off according to their security.

McGyro
18-09-2014, 06:59 PM
+1 on the L+N coalition, but it presupposes the politicians are sufficiently mature to put the good of the country ahead of the good of the party. Not many signs of that to date.
Always admired the Swiss political system where coalitions are a foregone conclusion, and the politicians are expected to play together nicely apart from at election time.

iceman
18-09-2014, 07:39 PM
Reading the below from Tony Alexander's Weekly Overview just now. Not surprising National has been content to fight this election campaign on "steady as she goes" with the economy. Lets hope a sufficient number of voters see that we are generally doing quite well:

"Strongest Pace of Economic Growth in Nine Years
Statistics New Zealand released data this morning showing us that after growing by 1% in the December
and March quarters our economy grew by a still above average 0.7% during the June quarter. This means
that the official growth rate, calculated as four quarters versus the same four quarters a year earlier, rose
to 3.6% from 3.2% last quarter and 2.2% a year earlier. This is the strongest annual rate of growth in the
NZ economy since early 2005 so it is unsurprising that this nine year high in our growth has produced
earlier revealed 3.7% growth in job numbers this past year and a fall in the unemployment rate from 7.2%
to 5.6%.
Driving the 3.6% growth this past year was a near 12% rise in construction, 6% growth in agriculture, over
4% growth in retail trade and financial services, and over 5% growth in health and social care. Over the
past two and a half decades the average pace of growth in the NZ economy has been 2.5% therefore
3.6% growth is well above average. Construction usually grows just 3% so 12% growth is an absolute
boom. Agriculture normally grows less than 2% so 6% is also a boom – now ended. "

elZorro
18-09-2014, 11:53 PM
Reading the below from Tony Alexander's Weekly Overview just now. Not surprising National has been content to fight this election campaign on "steady as she goes" with the economy. Lets hope a sufficient number of voters see that we are generally doing quite well:

"Strongest Pace of Economic Growth in Nine Years
Statistics New Zealand released data this morning showing us that after growing by 1% in the December
and March quarters our economy grew by a still above average 0.7% during the June quarter. This means
that the official growth rate, calculated as four quarters versus the same four quarters a year earlier, rose
to 3.6% from 3.2% last quarter and 2.2% a year earlier. This is the strongest annual rate of growth in the
NZ economy since early 2005 so it is unsurprising that this nine year high in our growth has produced
earlier revealed 3.7% growth in job numbers this past year and a fall in the unemployment rate from 7.2%
to 5.6%.
Driving the 3.6% growth this past year was a near 12% rise in construction, 6% growth in agriculture, over
4% growth in retail trade and financial services, and over 5% growth in health and social care. Over the
past two and a half decades the average pace of growth in the NZ economy has been 2.5% therefore
3.6% growth is well above average. Construction usually grows just 3% so 12% growth is an absolute
boom. Agriculture normally grows less than 2% so 6% is also a boom – now ended. "

Iceman, it's hardly surprising that there has been good growth in some metrics. After all, they took a terrific dump during the GFC, some of them. Is the govt running a budget surplus yet? No, 6 years out.

Dene Mackenzie on the likely election results, with the usual lean towards National.


19/9/2014 — Economics, Politics and Government
National in poll position, Winston the outlier
By Dene Mackenzie
National is on track to win a commanding majority of votes tomorrow but New Zealand First leader Winston Peters still remains the outlier of the election with no indication of who he will support in coalition.
Labour is at risk of seeing its voting support collapse as the Green Party gathers strength. The Greens again said yesterday they had led the Opposition over the last three years and were ready to lead the government.
The Green's goal is to become the largest party of the left.
National has been working hard in electorates it does not hold to not only win the seat but also increase its party vote. From the first day of the campaign, National has emphasised its supporters should not split the vote.
Labour took some time to get to the same message, meaning its billboards had a message to vote first for the candidate and secondly for the party. National also took a chance of holding its campaign launch in the traditional Labour Party stronghold of Manukau while Labour launched in the Viaduct Basin.
In previous elections, the roles would have been reversed.
It has been campaign of wits between the two major parties and Labour, as it was in 2011, was left struggling to keep up.
To have any chance of forming a government, Labour leader David Cunliffe must have the support of NZ First, the Greens, Internet Mana and the Maori Party - but he has already ruled the last two parties out of any deal.
Prime Minister John Key will get first crack at forming a government on Sunday and it will be a surprise if he has not already talked to several of the other parties of the right to help with his numbers.
Act New Zealand Epsom candidate David Seymour and United Future leader Peter Dunne will immediately throw their fortunes in with National. The deals are easy - extend charter schools for Act and consider flexi-superannuation for Dunne.
The latest polling showed National, Act and United Future with 58 seats, and the Maori Party with three. Key surprised all in 2008 when he revealed on election night he had already talked to the Maori Party co-leaders and a deal had been struck.
He did not need the party then, but the advance deal ensured Maori Party support for the next six years. He needs the Maori Party now. Retaining Whanau Ora will swing it for the Maori Party.
Winston Peters and NZ First have been growing in confidence and support and both National and Labour have wooed him in various ways. Peters has kept up a punishing schedule of visits to smaller centres, talking to mainly elderly audiences about things that matter to them - superannuation, the GoldCard, foreign ownership of land and immigration.
Peters once kept the country guessing for nearly six weeks as he played Labour and National off against each other before finally signing a deal with former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger.
Pundits spoken to yesterday by the Otago Daily Times believed National's vote is on the rise following the Kim Dotcom Moment of Truth conference held in Auckland earlier this week.
The event had the reverse effect of what Dotcom had planned with right-of-centre voters deciding to put their support behind Key in the belief a National-led government might expedite the extradition process to the United States of the German internet entrepreneur.
However, National saw its support fall short of all end-of-campaign polls in 2008 and 2011 and it will be remarkable if Key can form a government quickly with just Act, United Future and the Maori Party.
Most of the campaign has been dominated by claims of dirty politics and, latterly, spying. The loser in the debate has been Labour, unable to get its policies into mainstream media, and left fighting for space on social media.
There is plenty to watch for tomorrow and the future of senior politicians rest with the results. Long-serving Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Ruth Dyson are at risk of losing their seats and neither is on the list.
Labour may win back Napier, thanks to Conservative candidate Garth McVicar standing and splitting National's vote.
Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira and Labour MP Kelvin Davis are thought to be polling neck and neck, with each one needing to win to return to Parliament.
Without Hone Harawira, Internet Party implodes on Sunday.
One of the most watched contests will be whether the Colin Craig-led and funded Conservative Party gets above 5%. The party polled 4.9% on Wednesday and Craig said internal polling had the party at 5.5%. But his press secretary resigned suddenly yesterday, calling Craig manipulative. That may put off some voters. National could well do with Conservative support to avoid Peters.
However, the important vote is the party vote and National is on track to at least maintain its vote from 2011, if not build upon it.
*Dene Mackenzie is political editor of the Otago Daily Times.

slimwin
19-09-2014, 12:02 AM
A budget surplus after the earthquakes? You must be kidding.

elZorro
19-09-2014, 08:12 AM
We are not allowed to post tomorrow, technically. In any case, the politically-minded will be watching the TV from the early evening onwards. I want to state some things now, though.

If you look at the start of this thread, conceived and hopefully carried through by Belgarion, it is about a disappointment regarding apathy towards the electoral process. Uninformed voters, people who won't vote, people who don't bother to vote.

All through this thread are numerous observations and data, graphs, stats. It is a permanent record on the web, hopefully, and all the posters have pitched in with their thoughts. I've learnt a lot from it.

With a bit of background reading, I have come to the conclusion that the 1984-onwards NZ experiment in neo-liberalism and globalisation achieved some necessary changes, but also brought havoc to our equality measures here (see the GINI index). Those changes have never been restored, part of a worldwide trend, where the capital base is achieving more power, relative to the working class.

Labour started to redress these issues from 1999 to 2008, that's why NZ started to feel like a great country again. Of course that came to an end, and the GFC cemented National into power. They have continued down the globalisation path with some minor corrections. This of course, means that wages here have to be clamped closer to average overseas wages. The rules say we should stop most manufacturing of common goods, even if that means our manufacturing base is eroded by 42,000 staff. We need to screw down costly background staff in all govt and public departments, even if that means we'll see disasters like Pike River. Our GDP/capita will drop, but that's OK. We might have to run large budget deficits as we erode the tax base to help out the landed gentry, that's also OK.

The problem for National was how to sell these (generally dangerous) ideas to NZ voters. That process started with Don Brash hiring Crosby-Textor in 2004. These people are probably the world's best neo-liberal campaign strategists. They are ruthless in changing the perception of a whole population towards what their clients want to achieve. We know that National was still using Crosby-Textor in the 2011 campaign. Now there is irrefutable proof that they are still using Crosby-Textor.

As these guys are the campaign leaders, they must have known about the information being passed to bloggers, because they'd have seen the results. This was never clamped down on, it accelerated, as shown in Nicky Hager's book "Dirty Politics". I think that it is highly likely that Crosby-Textor instigated the whole idea of passing damaging data from government files, to right-wing bloggers like Cameron Slater. All it needed was a bit of cash thrown their way, to keep the computers going.

But more to the point, since 2004, ten years ago, NZ voters have been subjected to pro-National neo-liberal brainwashing from the best campaign strategists that can be hired. I implore voters to look back over the data at StatsNZ and elsewhere, and become informed about the various party policies, before voting. Make sure you vote.

fungus pudding
19-09-2014, 08:14 AM
We are not allowed to post tomorrow, technically. policies, before voting.


Why not? This is a closed forum.

craic
19-09-2014, 08:28 AM
Thinking about it - If Colin Craig gets his 5%, National will win.
If Hone Harawira wins his seat, Labour will probably win with a collection of improbables from the bottom pile.
If it rains heavily in Labour marginal seats, National will win.
On Sunday, I am going to a show and dinner with a group of friends, every one of them staunch Labour supporters.
Nothing of any importance will have changed on Monday morning.

fungus pudding
19-09-2014, 08:37 AM
Thinking about it - If Colin Craig gets his 5%, National will win.
If Hone Harawira wins his seat, Labour will probably win with a collection of improbables from the bottom pile.
If it rains heavily in Labour marginal seats, National will win.
On Sunday, I am going to a show and dinner with a group of friends, every one of them staunch Labour supporters.
Nothing of any importance will have changed on Monday morning.

Conservatives aren't looking good. National will hopefully still get in without Craig, and that would make for a more stable govt.
And don't believe that 'rainy day bad for Labour' myth. A lower voter rainy day turnout might have been true in the first part of the last century when it was too much trouble to saddle up the horse just to ride off and vote, but it applied to all parties.

minimoke
19-09-2014, 08:52 AM
We are not allowed to post tomorrow, technically.not entirely true. We can't promote or attack a party or candidate on election day up to 7.00 pm. So if we can refrain from such activity and ensure we are not trying to influence voters then we can still discuss.

craic
19-09-2014, 09:13 AM
Not a myth,I'm Afraid. As a PO I had a reporting centre in the midst of a large State Housing area. A wet evening would reduce the level of reporting right down even though it was a criminal offence. Crime also drops radically in bad weather. Offenders on that level do not support National or do not vote anyway.
Conservatives aren't looking good. National will hopefully still get in without Craig, and that would make for a more stable govt.
And don't believe that 'rainy day bad for Labour' myth. A lower voter rainy day turnout might have been true in the first part of the last century when it was too much trouble to saddle up the horse just to ride off and vote, but it applied to all parties.

fungus pudding
19-09-2014, 09:23 AM
Not a myth,I'm Afraid. As a PO I had a reporting centre in the midst of a large State Housing area. A wet evening would reduce the level of reporting right down even though it was a criminal offence. Crime also drops radically in bad weather. Offenders on that level do not support National or do not vote anyway.

Sorry but that's not voting. I think you'll find research over the last 20 or so elections show little reaction to weather.

Hoop
19-09-2014, 09:57 AM
Latest short term chart from I-predict (up to 9.15am today)
One thing about the validity on I-predict is you put your money where your mouth is...
My TA chart from I predict sees a support at 82c (82% chance) for National holding power after tomorrows election...There was Technical trouble earlier but last Tuesday 16th saw a TA buy signal with the 82c resistance broken...the break out rally ran out of steam mid day Wednesday 17th and we are testing the new 82c support again....
With over 80% prediction it seems the Media is making out this election to be a lot closer than perhaps it really is...Listerning and relying on the Media as being honest I would've thought I- predict would have shown these market predictions around the 60-65% level..but no..it seems odds on National will win, unless an unexpected bombshell explodes today.

From I -predict charts concerning indidivual electorates...Electorates on my watchlist are:

May Surprise

Hutt South...Labour held...Traditionally L but electorate boundaries has done Trever Mallard no favours..There's been volatile swing trading here on I predict ..down 4c to 69c 5.65% this morning!!! (69% chance L will win)

Palmeston North...Labour held...L had a scare earlier on but has broken its downtrend and rallying back quickly into the lead against N

Te Atatu ..Labour held...L is in front but not by much N is 2nd

Waimakariri ..National held (2011 Marginal seat) L is trailing but it will be close if National loses steam and breaks 82c support.


Cliff hangers

Port Hills ..L held..Ruth Dyson's seat under threat from N.....UPDATE big trading swing to N up 10% this morning to 53% chance of winning

Te Tai Tokerau* ...Mana held...Hone is sweating on this one, he is eyeball to eyeball with Labour...Too close to call. UPDATE Hone pulling ahead this morning


Goneburgers

Tamaki Makaurau...Maori Party held....Pita Sharples is gone and so has this seat...Odds on for a Labour victory here.

Te Tai Hauauru...Maori Party held....Labour has 73% chance of winning...

Christchurch Central...National held...Traditionally a strong Labour seat and there's a 73% chance L is taking it back


Seats that Matter:

Epsom...Act held..... Act has an 87% chance of winning this time...no problem here

Hamilton East and Hamilton West..These two seats used to be "the bell weather seats" If they go red Labour wins...This election prediction its all blue 89% and 92% respectively.

Ohariu..United held...United has 83% chance of winning this time ...no problems here either (up 3% this morning).

Waiariki....Maori Party held...MP has 86% of winning this time...no problems..

*Te Tai Tokerau...see above Mana's survivial in Parliament rests on this seat



http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq306/Hoop_1/aaelection.png (http://s458.photobucket.com/user/Hoop_1/media/aaelection.png.html)

winner69
19-09-2014, 10:09 AM
so buying in the 60's and the 70's was pretty good ....nice

elZorro
19-09-2014, 10:13 AM
Hoop, interesting analysis. You have noted some weird things going on with iPredict. I'm fairly certain that about 10 right-wing people, mostly with deep pockets and accounts that never seem to hit the $2500 limits, push the important voting around. Just so people like you can publish the results online.

I have noted elsewhere that the actual closeoff (each day for the last two weeks) is still done by Exceltium, 100% owned by Matthew Hooton. He gets to choose when it's closed off, and he has an account on iPredict. Most of the National MPs appear to be keeping their own chances looking very positive, and most Labour candidates have been slack about getting involved. So, what you are looking at, is a fabrication, not a real market, on many of the smaller options anyway.

What is perceived to be real, can often turn out to be real, after a deciding event like the election. It's all part of the National Team propaganda.

Hoop
19-09-2014, 10:43 AM
Hoop, interesting analysis. You have noted some weird things going on with iPredict. I'm fairly certain that about 10 right-wing people, mostly with deep pockets and accounts that never seem to hit the $2500 limits, push the important voting around. Just so people like you can publish the results online.

I have noted elsewhere that the actual closeoff (each day for the last two weeks) is still done by Exceltium, 100% owned by Matthew Hooton. He gets to choose when it's closed off, and he has an account on iPredict. Most of the National MPs appear to be keeping their own chances looking very positive, and most Labour candidates have been slack about getting involved. So, what you are looking at, is a fabrication, not a real market, on many of the smaller options anyway.

What is perceived to be real, can often turn out to be real, after a deciding event like the election. It's all part of the National Team propaganda.

EZ..We don't have to wait long to see how accurate these media polls are and I-predict too.:)

If you look at I-predict there is only a handful of electorates that are tight run contests..the volatility exists in only a few electorates so I guess the games being played here can be equally blamed on all parties involved...its all human nature really...

I-predict is a market place....NZX is a market place ...game on :D

elZorro
19-09-2014, 10:48 AM
EZ..We don't have to wait long to see how accurate these media polls are and I-predict too.:)

If you look at I-predict there is only a handful of electorates that are tight run contests..the volatility exists in only a few electorates so I guess the games being played here can be equally blamed on all parties involved...its all human nature really

Yeah, except National holds all of the good hands, using a stacked deck.

BlackPeter
19-09-2014, 10:54 AM
Hoop, interesting analysis. You have noted some weird things going on with iPredict. I'm fairly certain that about 10 right-wing people, mostly with deep pockets and accounts that never seem to hit the $2500 limits, push the important voting around. Just so people like you can publish the results online.

I have noted elsewhere that the actual closeoff (each day for the last two weeks) is still done by Exceltium, 100% owned by Matthew Hooton. He gets to choose when it's closed off, and he has an account on iPredict. Most of the National MPs appear to be keeping their own chances looking very positive, and most Labour candidates have been slack about getting involved. So, what you are looking at, is a fabrication, not a real market, on many of the smaller options anyway.

What is perceived to be real, can often turn out to be real, after a deciding event like the election. It's all part of the National Team propaganda.
Hi EZ, if that's what you really believe, than why don't you just put your money where your mouth is instead of complaining about right wing conspiracies? Just gang up with Kim Dotcom, Nicky Hager, Belg and other rich Lefties (Leila earns much more money than she deserves, and there are others) and buy all these in your view too cheap options that Labour might win. I am sure together you can get the price up (in the spirit of a real unionist) ... and if you are right ... than you all will be richly rewarded come Sunday ...:p

Hoop
19-09-2014, 11:06 AM
Yeah, except National holds all of the good hands, using a stacked deck.


ELZ..I hope for your sake that I-predict for a couple of Maori seats and Christchurch Central going back to Labour are true........or is it all as you say .....propaganda!!!

elZorro
19-09-2014, 11:18 AM
ELZ..I hope for your sake that I-predict for a couple of Maori seats and Christchurch Central going back to Labour are true........or is it all as you say .....propaganda!!!

What do you think I've been doing, sitting on my hands? What Labour and the left need, is a few more savvy sharetraders jumping into iPredict now, to redress some of this rubbish. If you jump in as National supporters, you pay top dollar for each trade. If you go in to restore some balance, the trades don't cost as much. And sooner or later, those high buy bids that National supporters and incumbents put there for safety, have to be used up. That'll hurt.

nextbigthing
19-09-2014, 11:57 AM
El Z, cut you a deal. If National get in I'll do something substantial for eradicating child poverty such as collecting donations for a good cause and donating some time.
If Labour get in, you donate some time and lobbying to something that's going to protect my personal freedom from the government and protect my right for choice and effort equalling reward.
Fair deal?

gv1
19-09-2014, 12:08 PM
I wonder who bought the lady who was press sec for conservative?

Joshuatree
19-09-2014, 12:10 PM
Just had a personal message from Mr Smarmyte on my answer phone. It felt great to cut him off,:t_up:;... thanks John; time to resign on monday ; fingers crossed.

nextbigthing
19-09-2014, 12:20 PM
Just had a personal message from Mr Smarmyte on my answer phone. It felt great to cut him off,:t_up:;... thanks John; time to resign on monday ; fingers crossed.

You could try an open mind approach JT.

Have a good weekend. NBT

craic
19-09-2014, 12:22 PM
What makes you think she was/is a lady? Regardless of her reasons, she walked out on a lot of people at a most critical moment and people will not forget that. If I was an employer and she turned up on my doorstep, she would be told to #####\ off.

Bobcat.
19-09-2014, 12:41 PM
I wonder who bought the lady who was press sec for conservative?

Yes, it's clearly a credibility issue...but for who?

Are we expected to believe that there is some innocent reason for Rachel MacGregor to get disaffected with her boss, attack his integrity, and kick him in the guts two days before the election - labelling him a manipulator without the decency to provide any explanation or evidence to back up her accusation? It is nothing short of unscrupulous, and it's Ms MacGregor's character that should be brought into question.

Perhaps this has something to do with this:

"In a profile of Mr Craig in Metro magazine in March, Ms MacGregor said she had suffered personal criticism for joining the Conservatives. Ms MacGregor, who used to work as producer on TVNZ shows Breakfast and Good Morning, said: "There've been people who have deleted me off Facebook [horror!]. e.g. Tamati Coffey, who I worked with for many years. There's actually been a number of people in the media who've gone, 'Oh, you're working for Colin Craig? I can't talk to you anymore.' Steve Gray at Good Morning is a lovely guy, we got on really well, but now I'm the devil, apparently.""

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11326951

Clearly, she likes her popularity so much that she's hurting when she loses it, and is blaming Colin Craig. Vanity. It's too bad that she has not got what it takes to do the hard yards for a good cause. Getting unpopular has got her ripe for the picking by someone bent on discrediting the Conservatives on the eve of this election. Who prompted her, and timed it oh so well? And did you see how quickly the vultures circled? "Why did your press secretary resign? Is it because you hate gays?", etc. More unfounded accusations are likely to follow. The sharks are smelling blood.

Consider this:

1. Has this had any justifiable impact on the Conservatives' values, integrity or policies, on which they should be judged? No.

2. Has Craig or any other prominent Conservative been proven to be criminal or unethical on their campaign? No.

3. Is this mud-slinging going to have its desired effect? Possibly, but not on those who can see it for what it is - a desperate attempt by those getting worried that a party with predominantly Christian values might for once pass the 5% threshold and have some decision making power in the way that this nation (God defend NZ) is governed.

Avoid impulsive voting. Don't let anyone try to pull your strings, thinking that you're their puppet.

BC

elZorro
19-09-2014, 12:46 PM
El Z, cut you a deal. If National get in I'll do something substantial for eradicating child poverty such as collecting donations for a good cause and donating some time.
If Labour get in, you donate some time and lobbying to something that's going to protect my personal freedom from the government and protect my right for choice and effort equalling reward.
Fair deal?

Fair enough NBT, one thing that I do is employ people through thick and thin, and pay them well over the living wage. I have never felt that I needed more government support, once I'd started to earn a reasonable living. Whatever taxes are due, I pay them. Interest at 20%, I was never fond of that.

Banksie
19-09-2014, 12:47 PM
Interesting article on how "undecided" skew polls

http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/the-real-story-in-the-fairfax-polls/

slimwin
19-09-2014, 02:06 PM
Or Colin Craig could be an ass bobcat. He is a politician after all.

Banksie
19-09-2014, 02:14 PM
3. Is this mud-slinging going to have its desired effect? Possibly, but not on those who can see it for what it is - a desperate attempt by those getting worried that a party with predominantly Christian values might for once pass the 5% threshold and have some decision making power in the way that this nation (God defend NZ) is governed.

I keep hearing that the conservatives are a "Christian Party" but their statements don't seem to bear this out.

To quote CC from his website:

"...the supposition that we are a religious party or have policies that reflect religious scriptures is simply false.

Let me be very clear: the Conservative Party is a main stream party with members and supporters representing a cross section of New Zealanders. A statement of principles that we subscribe to is on this website and in our party constitution and there is nothing religious in it nor will there be."

minimoke
19-09-2014, 03:30 PM
I keep hearing that the conservatives are a "Christian Party" but their statements don't seem to bear this out.

To quote CC from his website:

"...the supposition that we are a religious party or have policies that reflect religious scriptures is simply false.

Let me be very clear: the Conservative Party is a main stream party with members and supporters representing a cross section of New Zealanders. A statement of principles that we subscribe to is on this website and in our party constitution and there is nothing religious in it nor will there be."
I think Bobcat is confusing vales an individual holds dear with party policy. Many politicians seem to declare an interest in one god or other. Bill English for example is a practicing Catholic and has bred well.david cunliffe is Anglican and Peter dunne is a good Christian man. Tariana turns is ratana. No shortage of God botherers to vote for!

winner69
20-09-2014, 07:54 PM
We needed a change in government but alas the opposition contenders were useless as

On this Nats will win the 2017 election and the 2020 elections

winner69
20-09-2014, 08:00 PM
You wouldn't want to be too far down the Labour list if you want a job in parliament

Sideshow Bob
20-09-2014, 08:05 PM
Interesting stuff. Percentages haven't changed so far from the start of the night.

Sideshow Bob
20-09-2014, 08:13 PM
C'mon kelvin Davis!

couta1
20-09-2014, 08:15 PM
No CGT-Tick, The end of Hone and Internet Mana-Double Tick.

winner69
20-09-2014, 08:17 PM
Interesting stuff. Percentages haven't changed so far from the start of the night.

Large number of advance votes maybe gave a better opening count position.

fish
20-09-2014, 08:35 PM
We needed a change in government but alas the opposition contenders were useless as

On this Nats will win the 2017 election and the 2020 elections

I am currently in the UK but voted for national in the electorate and act for a tactical party vote before leaving .
In general in the past I have been a swinging voter and don't like any political party being in power too long and getting complacent and possibly corrupt.
This time it was different-John Key has worked hard to develop trading relationships and has moderate domestic policies designed to help all.
This has been a dirty election but he has been shrewd enough to navigate national through it.
Hopefully he will be more diligent in the future to stamp out corruption and the likes of Judith Collins.
As you say the opposition was useless-I would go further and say they would have an adverse effect on markets .

Sideshow Bob
20-09-2014, 08:37 PM
National was 47.44% on advance and Labour was 24.44%. So quite similar to where it is currently.

fungus pudding
20-09-2014, 08:50 PM
I am currently in the UK but voted for national in the electorate and act for a tactical party vote before leaving .
In general in the past I have been a swinging voter and don't like any political party being in power too long and getting complacent and possibly corrupt.
This time it was different-John Key has worked hard to develop trading relationships and has moderate domestic policies designed to help all.
This has been a dirty election but he has been shrewd enough to navigate national through it.
Hopefully he will be more diligent in the future to stamp out corruption and the likes of Judith Collins.
As you say the opposition was useless-I would go further and say they would have an adverse effect on markets .

Wrong way round. Party vote should have gone to National. Electorate seat is pretty much irrelevant unless you are in Epsom electorate in which cas Act is the one to vote for.

craic
20-09-2014, 09:37 PM
I think I won a bet?

fungus pudding
20-09-2014, 09:53 PM
Best news of all - Kim DotGone!!

Sideshow Bob
20-09-2014, 10:17 PM
Best news of all - Kim DotGone!!

Need a 'like' button!

blackcap
20-09-2014, 10:30 PM
I think I won a bet?

You certainly did, spend it wisely :)

craic
20-09-2014, 10:55 PM
I think that the main gain from tonight's result is that we have removed the rubbish from the bottom of the pile. Dot Com, Harre, Minto and Hone have been taken out of the equation. David Cunliffe was quite good in his concession speech but I don't think many expect him to last. The question now for Labour is who have they got?

Minerbarejet
20-09-2014, 10:59 PM
I think that the main gain from tonight's result is that we have removed the rubbish from the bottom of the pile. Dot Com, Harre, Minto and Hone have been taken out of the equation. David Cunliffe was quite good in his concession speech but I don't think many expect him to last. The question now for Labour is who have they got?
Robertson. Thats it.

macduffy
21-09-2014, 06:59 AM
I think that the main gain from tonight's result is that we have removed the rubbish from the bottom of the pile. Dot Com, Harre, Minto and Hone have been taken out of the equation. David Cunliffe was quite good in his concession speech but I don't think many expect him to last. The question now for Labour is who have they got?

Yes, indeed!

And we don't have to wait for the fourth runner to complete the marathon and declare himself the winner!

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 07:05 AM
I think that the main gain from tonight's result is that we have removed the rubbish from the bottom of the pile. Dot Com, Harre, Minto and Hone have been taken out of the equation. David Cunliffe was quite good in his concession speech but I don't think many expect him to last. The question now for Labour is who have they got?


He spoke well, delivered well, but blamed the wrong things. He just doesn't get it.

craic
21-09-2014, 08:47 AM
Where oh! where have all the flowers gone? (left posters) carried this ancient topic forward through two elections. "If National Wins" well they did, twice and all the signs are that they could win the next one. The sun is shining outside, Kiwis are returning home in droves, and all is well - except maybe for Auckland? Didn't I read somewhere that the leader of that fair city announced that he was paying his staff a minimum of $18 an hour or more in accordance with his masters policies? Now he seems to have blown out his wages budget by a few million dollars - and he hasn't got a Labour Govt. to bail him out. Now there's an opportunity for Kim Dotcom if ever I saw one.

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 08:55 AM
Where oh! where have all the flowers gone? (left posters) carried this ancient topic forward through two elections. "If National Wins" well they did, twice and all the signs are that they could win the next one. The sun is shining outside, Kiwis are returning home in droves, and all is well - except maybe for Auckland? Didn't I read somewhere that the leader of that fair city announced that he was paying his staff a minimum of $18 an hour or more in accordance with his masters policies? Now he seems to have blown out his wages budget by a few million dollars - and he hasn't got a Labour Govt. to bail him out. Now there's an opportunity for Kim Dotcom if ever I saw one.

Dollars to doughnuts they will win the next election. This was the tough one, but they'll get a clear run now. Conservatives need an electorate seat or they'll get an even smaller vote next time. Winston's mob will be gone - Labour/Greens need to amalgamate or something. Unions and union backed parties have had their day. I think we're seeing the dying stages of Labour so an alternative to National is some way off.

westerly
21-09-2014, 09:10 AM
Dollars to doughnuts they will win the next election. This was the tough one, but they'll get a clear run now. Conservatives need an electorate seat or they'll get an even smaller vote next time. Winston's mob will be gone - Labour/Greens need to amalgamate or something. Unions and union backed parties have had their day. I think we're seeing the dying stages of Labour so an alternative to National is some way off.

Dreams are free . Natioal came back from 27 seats in 2002

westerly

artemis
21-09-2014, 09:12 AM
Dollars to doughnuts they will win the next election. This was the tough one, but they'll get a clear run now. Conservatives need an electorate seat or they'll get an even smaller vote next time. Winston's mob will be gone - Labour/Greens need to amalgamate or something. Unions and union backed parties have had their day. I think we're seeing the dying stages of Labour so an alternative to National is some way off.

Ron Mark is a credible successor to Winston I reckon.

BlackPeter
21-09-2014, 09:17 AM
Glad its all over, even if I would have preferred a National lead government (vs National being able to run it alone ...).

Seeing myself in the centre of the political spectrum, it was a bit sad to observe previously centre-left parties like Labour and Greens to all crowd the far left of the political spectrum and ignoring (and actively putting off) the voters in the centre.

Democracy is about parties sensing and representing their electorate, not about parties trying to force their political agendas down the throats of the voters. So I guess, every party got what they deserved, and Labour and Green can sleep well in the knowledge that there are still roughly one third of the electorate happy to be represented by hard left wing politicians.

So it looks like another 3 years of the same (and yes, I prefer that to suffering under hardly thought through left wing policies). If I have a wish free (I probably don't), than I would wish for one of the left wing parties (Labour or Green) to return back to the centre and trying to represent as well ordinary people. It would be nice to have next time a real credible alternative in the centre.

nextbigthing
21-09-2014, 09:21 AM
Glad its all over, even if I would have preferred a National lead government (vs National being able to run it alone ...).

Seeing myself in the centre of the political spectrum, it was a bit sad to observe previously centre-left parties like Labour and Greens to all crowd the far left of the political spectrum and ignoring (and actively putting off) the voters in the centre.

Democracy is about parties sensing and representing their electorate, not about parties trying to force their political agendas down the throats of the voters. So I guess, every party got what they deserved, and Labour and Green can sleep well in the knowledge that there are still roughly one third of the electorate happy to be represented by hard left wing politicians.

So it looks like another 3 years of the same (and yes, I prefer that to suffering under hardly thought through left wing policies). If I have a wish free (I probably don't), than I would wish for one of the left wing parties (Labour or Green) to return back to the centre and trying to represent as well ordinary people. It would be nice to have next time a real credible alternative in the centre.

BP you nailed it. Exactly.

Interesting article on stuff with a great comment by David Shearer, something along the lines of Labour needs to stop trying to represent a band of minorities and start representing middle NZ.

winner69
21-09-2014, 09:22 AM
Glad its all over, even if I would have preferred a National lead government (vs National being able to run it alone ...).

Seeing myself in the centre of the political spectrum, it was a bit sad to observe previously centre-left parties like Labour and Greens to all crowd the far left of the political spectrum and ignoring (and actively putting off) the voters in the centre.

Democracy is about parties sensing and representing their electorate, not about parties trying to force their political agendas down the throats of the voters. So I guess, every party got what they deserved, and Labour and Green can sleep well in the knowledge that there are still roughly one third of the electorate happy to be represented by hard left wing politicians.

So it looks like another 3 years of the same (and yes, I prefer that to suffering under hardly thought through left wing policies). If I have a wish free (I probably don't), than I would wish for one of the left wing parties (Labour or Green) to return back to the centre and trying to represent as well ordinary people. It would be nice to have next time a real credible alternative in the centre.

That's not the way it meant to work these days

John's friends up north will be very pleased with him ....he serves them well

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 09:35 AM
Dreams are free . Natioal came back from 27 seats in 2002

westerly

Labour and Greens either either amalgamate, or Labour will die.

nextbigthing
21-09-2014, 09:57 AM
Labour and Greens either either amalgamate, or Labour will die.

Not quite IMHO.

Labour need to stop pandering to minorities and telling us how to live and instead listen to middle NZ. Keep promoting a smart clean economy with a safety net function but only tax and govern where required, leave the rest to the individual to do what they think is best.

Only when they finally do this will they gain support again. David Shearer seems to be the only guy in Labour who had grasped this.

They have two options now. More of the same, or start listening to what most kiwis actually want - which I get impression is the 'bluegreens'

BlackPeter
21-09-2014, 10:12 AM
Labour and Greens either either amalgamate, or Labour will die.

Not sure - I believe there is a place for (real) Green policies and there is a place for left wing policies in our political spectrum. The problem this time as I see it was that both Labour and Green went for the left wing ... maybe the Greens wearing a wee little green jacket to conceal their real political agenda.

I think that NZ needs a strong environmental movement which is politically balanced and able to work with parties on both sides of the political spectrum to protect our environment. As long as the Greens are unable to do this, they will stay in opposition.

In my view there is a place for both parties if they manage to sort out who is representing which part of the electorate, instead of all of them crowding the same spot.

craic
21-09-2014, 10:29 AM
Everyone seems to have missed the peculiar Napier result. A very hard working Labour candidate regained the seat from National, primarily because an equally popular, local, Conservative candidate, split the vote with a lacklustre National candidate. This was evidenced by National getting almost double the party vote that Labour got in Napier. Had McVicar not been here, Labour would have one less seat and National one more. Nash is probably a bit raw for the role of Labour Leader but time will tell. He had two main platforms here, the repair of the Napier/Gisborne rail ink and "No to Amalgamation" of local bodies in the area. Both are now dead issues so what does he have for the local apart from rides on his big red fire engine

slimwin
21-09-2014, 10:42 AM
And the real winner on election night was craic. I trust you'll invest the win unwisely in a very nice bottle of whisky or something...

Hoop
21-09-2014, 10:56 AM
Latest short term chart from I-predict (up to 9.15am today)
One thing about the validity on I-predict is you put your money where your mouth is...
My TA chart from I predict sees a support at 82c (82% chance) for National holding power after tomorrows election...There was Technical trouble earlier but last Tuesday 16th saw a TA buy signal with the 82c resistance broken...the break out rally ran out of steam mid day Wednesday 17th and we are testing the new 82c support again....
With over 80% prediction it seems the Media is making out this election to be a lot closer than perhaps it really is...Listerning and relying on the Media as being honest I would've thought I- predict would have shown these market predictions around the 60-65% level..but no..it seems odds on National will win, unless an unexpected bombshell explodes today.

From I -predict charts concerning indidivual electorates...Electorates on my watchlist are:

May Surprise

Hutt South...Labour held...Traditionally L but electorate boundaries has done Trever Mallard no favours..There's been volatile swing trading here on I predict ..down 4c to 69c 5.65% this morning!!! (69% chance L will win)

Winning Candidate:

MALLARD, Trevor

Majority:
378



Palmeston North...Labour held...L had a scare earlier on but has broken its downtrend and rallying back quickly into the lead against N

Winning Candidate:

LEES-GALLOWAY, Iain

Majority:
1,889



Te Atatu ..Labour held...L is in front but not by much N is 2nd

Winning Candidate:

TWYFORD, Phil

Majority:
2,260



Waimakariri ..National held (2011 Marginal seat) L is trailing but it will be close if National loses steam and breaks 82c support.

Winning Candidate:

DOOCEY, Matt

Majority:
2,133



Cliff hangers

Port Hills ..L held..Ruth Dyson's seat under threat from N.....UPDATE big trading swing to N up 10% this morning to 53% chance of winning

Winning Candidate:

DYSON, Ruth

Majority:
1,865



Te Tai Tokerau* ...Mana held...Hone is sweating on this one, he is eyeball to eyeball with Labour...Too close to call. UPDATE Hone pulling ahead this morning

Winning Candidate:

DAVIS, Kelvin

Majority:
1,119



Goneburgers

Tamaki Makaurau...Maori Party held....Pita Sharples is gone and so has this seat...Odds on for a Labour victory here.

Winning Candidate:

HENARE, Peeni

Majority:
1,235



Te Tai Hauauru...Maori Party held....Labour has 73% chance of winning...

Winning Candidate:

RURAWHE, Adrian

Majority:
1,453



Christchurch Central...National held...Traditionally a strong Labour seat and there's a 73% chance L is taking it back

Winning Candidate:

WAGNER, Nicky

Majority:
2,168



Seats that Matter:

Epsom...Act held..... Act has an 87% chance of winning this time...no problem here
ACT won

Hamilton East and Hamilton West..These two seats used to be "the bell weather seats" If they go red Labour wins...This election prediction its all blue 89% and 92% respectively.
National both seats

Ohariu..United held...United has 83% chance of winning this time ...no problems here either (up 3% this morning).
United Won

Waiariki....Maori Party held...MP has 86% of winning this time...no problems..
Maori Party won

*Te Tai Tokerau...see above Mana's survivial in Parliament rests on this seat
Hone's gone







Hoop, interesting analysis. You have noted some weird things going on with iPredict. I'm fairly certain that about 10 right-wing people, mostly with deep pockets and accounts that never seem to hit the $2500 limits, push the important voting around. Just so people like you can publish the results online.

I have noted elsewhere that the actual closeoff (each day for the last two weeks) is still done by Exceltium, 100% owned by Matthew Hooton. He gets to choose when it's closed off, and he has an account on iPredict. Most of the National MPs appear to be keeping their own chances looking very positive, and most Labour candidates have been slack about getting involved. So, what you are looking at, is a fabrication, not a real market, on many of the smaller options anyway.

What is perceived to be real, can often turn out to be real, after a deciding event like the election. It's all part of the National Team propaganda.




EZ..We don't have to wait long to see how accurate these media polls are and I-predict too.http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/smilies/001_smile.gif

If you look at I-predict there is only a handful of electorates that are tight run contests..the volatility exists in only a few electorates so I guess the games being played here can be equally blamed on all parties involved...its all human nature really...

I-predict is a market place....NZX is a market place ...game on http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/smilies/smile2grin.gif


ELZ..A follow-up as promised....Results added to my quoted post above.
The polling has been reasonably accurate this year..

Re I-Predict
Nothing here with I-Predict to support you right wing manipulation claims ELZ ...If anything the results have shown an overall slight left wing bias predictions...Those Seats that show anomallies are Chch Central and Te Tai Tokerau by the left and Port Hills by the right.
And Napier!! Yes Craig that was off most peoples radar

macduffy
21-09-2014, 11:01 AM
Really?

Assuming that it didn't affect the party vote - and that's borne out by Labour's poor party vote in the electorate - then Labour's total seats would not have been affected. Just one less electorate seat and one more party seat.

winner69
21-09-2014, 11:27 AM
Everyone seems to have missed the peculiar Napier result. A very hard working Labour candidate regained the seat from National, primarily because an equally popular, local, Conservative candidate, split the vote with a lacklustre National candidate. This was evidenced by National getting almost double the party vote that Labour got in Napier. Had McVicar not been here, Labour would have one less seat and National one more. Nash is probably a bit raw for the role of Labour Leader but time will tell. He had two main platforms here, the repair of the Napier/Gisborne rail ink and "No to Amalgamation" of local bodies in the area. Both are now dead issues so what does he have for the local apart from rides on his big red fire engine

Whaleoil reckons that Labour guy would have won even if Conservative guy didn't get many votes

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/09/stuart-nash-win-napier-conservatives/#more-156032

craic
21-09-2014, 11:54 AM
I know the candidates and I have spoken to a lot of people here. Nash was in line to beat Walford, all things being equal, but they were not. Boundary changes favoured Walford. As a supporter of McVicar, whom I know personally, just about every person I know who voted McVicar were National supporters. The local party vote was 2 to 1 in favour of National as far as I'm aware. But it doesn't matter now.

Harvey Specter
21-09-2014, 01:03 PM
I know the candidates and I have spoken to a lot of people here. Nash was in line to beat Walford, all things being equal, but they were not. Boundary changes favoured Walford. As a supporter of McVicar, whom I know personally, just about every person I know who voted McVicar were National supporters. The local party vote was 2 to 1 in favour of National as far as I'm aware. But it doesn't matter now.Conservatives are pretty well set up for next time. National could give McVicars the seats - they l ost it anyway so they are not givng up anything anyway. National could also give Rankin Epsom instead of Act.

plus if Winston retires, Conservatives will take a good portion of their vote.

Harvey Specter
21-09-2014, 01:05 PM
Great result for centre right. National now have a mandate to do ... um ... mmm ... what were their policies again???? Status quo it is then.

Time for the trickle down to start happening.

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 01:07 PM
Conservatives are pretty well set up for next time. National could give McVicars the seats - they l ost it anyway so they are not givng up anything anyway. National could also give Rankin Epsom instead of Act.

plus if Winston retires, Conservatives will take a good portion of their vote.

Conservatives have fairly difficult policies though.

Major von Tempsky
21-09-2014, 01:45 PM
Wot? No comments from EZ? After years of pounding our eardrums with how inevitable it was that Labour would win and he's now conspicuous by his absence. Away licking his wounds in the underbrush and sulking like a cat that has just lost a catfight it was sure it was going to win.
And before you start another long boring 3 year campaign of the same EZ, consider the possibility that John Key and National might win by even more next time...
No Kim Dotcom and Internet Mana and presumably not even Nicky Hager will try that crap on again.

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 03:11 PM
Wot? No comments from EZ? After years of pounding our eardrums with how inevitable it was that Labour would win and he's now conspicuous by his absence. Away licking his wounds in the underbrush and sulking like a cat that has just lost a catfight it was sure it was going to win.
And before you start another long boring 3 year campaign of the same EZ, consider the possibility that John Key and National might win by even more next time...
No Kim Dotcom and Internet Mana and presumably not even Nicky Hager will try that crap on again.

Go easy on eZ. He's on sick leave today.

elZorro
21-09-2014, 04:01 PM
Well yes, it was a sombre mood in the local Labour HQ as the results came in. There were quite a few there though, quite a good team got together in the end. Being keen on stats, I have charted the last four elections for overall votes, and it's very interesting.

About 90% of the party votes are always split up between National, Labour, Greens and NZFirst. So only one in ten voters selects a minority party on average. If there are too many of them, as we had last night, none of them get over 5%.

I have read through all the comments briefly, and can't agree with many of them. I'm pleased most noted that David Cunliffe carried himself well in defeat. He has really matured during this campaign.

Craic, send me a PM and I'll pay out on the bet pronto, you won fair and square.

Hoop, thanks for the analysis. I'm not going to get much back from iPredict, but I'll be pushing for someone else to be closing off their reports next election. The cheeky sods got away with it this year.

As to the result, I don't think it was anything to do with policies. I say this because National is leaving very poor stats in their wake in many cases, and Labour's policies would undoubtedly have helped out most NZers. Some of you breathed a sigh of relief about a CGT not coming through. Newsflash, we'll get one sooner or later, the country will have to get in more tax revenue to keep offering services to a rising and aging population.

No, what we are seeing here is not the result of National doing such a great job of governing the country. It is more likely that the use of Crosby-Textor as campaign managers over the last ten years, has moved public perception their way, and this process is still happening. Elections are won on perception, and National is using one of the world's leading neo-liberal campaign teams to get their message out.

With an increasing mandate, and being careful to not make any noises about what they're up to next, I'm fearful of what will be around the corner for lower and middle NZ. Trickle down? I don't think so. Trickle up, more likely.

winner69
21-09-2014, 04:10 PM
Well yes, it was a sombre mood in the local Labour HQ as the results came in. There were quite a few there though, quite a good team got together in the end. Being keen on stats, I have charted the last four elections for overall votes, and it's very interesting.

About 90% of the party votes are always split up between National, Labour, Greens and NZFirst. So only one in ten voters selects a minority party on average. If there are too many of them, as we had last night, none of them get over 5%.

I have read through all the comments briefly, and can't agree with many of them. I'm pleased most noted that David Cunliffe carried himself well in defeat. He has really matured during this campaign.

Craic, send me a PM and I'll pay out on the bet pronto, you won fair and square.

Hoop, thanks for the analysis. I'm not going to get much back from iPredict, but I'll be pushing for someone else to be closing off their reports next election. The cheeky sods got away with it this year.

As to the result, I don't think it was anything to do with policies. I say this because National is leaving very poor stats in their wake in many cases, and Labour's policies would undoubtedly have helped out most NZers. Some of you breathed a sigh of relief about a CGT not coming through. Newsflash, we'll get one sooner or later, the country will have to get in more tax revenue to keep offering services to a rising and aging population.

No, what we are seeing here is not the result of National doing such a great job of governing the country. It is more likely that the use of Crosby-Textor as campaign managers over the last ten years, has moved public perception their way, and this process is still happening. Elections are won on perception, and National is using one of the world's leading neo-liberal campaign teams to get their message out.

With an increasing mandate, and being careful to not make any noises about what they're up to next, I'm fearful of what will be around the corner for lower and middle NZ. Trickle down? I don't think so. Trickle up, more likely.

Very gracious of you EZ

I'm with you on this trickle up bit

The million plus who didn't vote might regret their inaction

As I said earlier John's mates in the US will be very pleased with what he has managed to achieve.

All going to plan probably

nextbigthing
21-09-2014, 04:53 PM
How I see it.

1) People in the center/right don't like David Cunliffe. They view him as divisive, arrogant, slimy and incompetent. Slimy and arrogant you might get away with, but not incompetent. He needs to go for Labour to have a chance (example writing the CGT policy then not even being able to answer questions on it before the election, people don't like that).

2) Labour needs to stop pandering to every minority group they can think of. They have alienated the 'average nzer' making them feel that there's nothing in it for them voting Labour. Example, David cunliffes speech at the Labour event last night. I got the impression he was about to announce a name change of the Labour party to the pacific island party there was such a strong theme with what he was saying and the pacific drums in the background. That's fine but the majority of nzers aren't pacific islanders and feel they're not represented. That's just one example but it's this constant social engineering that just annoys people. It's great if your a minimum wage earning pacific lesbian midget vegetarian (truely no offense at all intended to anyone) but the majority of nzers aren't.

I can't find the article on stuff now but Shearer and Cosgrove have come out saying exactly this. That the bulk of the policy is OK, just Labour are just out of touch with what people actually want.

You don't have to agree with this. You may think we'll it's Labour policy to represent these people so well stick with it and stand up for ourselves. That's fine but be prepared to do it as a minority party as proven by recent results.

el Z, ignore what Shearer and Cosgrove are saying at Labours peril!

winner69
21-09-2014, 05:54 PM
Nat's victory was so overwhelming that to cheer me up today and bring some sanity back into my world I had to get my Billy Bragg CDs out

BlackPeter
21-09-2014, 06:05 PM
Well yes, it was a sombre mood in the local Labour HQ as the results came in. There were quite a few there though, quite a good team got together in the end. Being keen on stats, I have charted the last four elections for overall votes, and it's very interesting.

About 90% of the party votes are always split up between National, Labour, Greens and NZFirst. So only one in ten voters selects a minority party on average. If there are too many of them, as we had last night, none of them get over 5%.

I have read through all the comments briefly, and can't agree with many of them. I'm pleased most noted that David Cunliffe carried himself well in defeat. He has really matured during this campaign.

Craic, send me a PM and I'll pay out on the bet pronto, you won fair and square.

Hoop, thanks for the analysis. I'm not going to get much back from iPredict, but I'll be pushing for someone else to be closing off their reports next election. The cheeky sods got away with it this year.

As to the result, I don't think it was anything to do with policies. I say this because National is leaving very poor stats in their wake in many cases, and Labour's policies would undoubtedly have helped out most NZers. Some of you breathed a sigh of relief about a CGT not coming through. Newsflash, we'll get one sooner or later, the country will have to get in more tax revenue to keep offering services to a rising and aging population.

No, what we are seeing here is not the result of National doing such a great job of governing the country. It is more likely that the use of Crosby-Textor as campaign managers over the last ten years, has moved public perception their way, and this process is still happening. Elections are won on perception, and National is using one of the world's leading neo-liberal campaign teams to get their message out.

With an increasing mandate, and being careful to not make any noises about what they're up to next, I'm fearful of what will be around the corner for lower and middle NZ. Trickle down? I don't think so. Trickle up, more likely.

Hi EZ,

Actually - I would love for New Zealand to have a credible alternative on the centre left side of the spectrum. However, if I read your comments, David Cunliffe's tirades, Leila's excuses and the weak analysis from the Green co-leaders, than I get the impression the Left thinks it is just the NZ voter who erred. Sounds like the Left thinks the NZ public must be stupid (or mediocre, or kidded by some PR company) that they choose not to follow your hard left teachings.

Is this really the way you think? Is the Left always right (excuse the pun) and everybody else stupid?

Look - it is not the job of the NZ public to do your (or Labours, or the Greens) bidding. It is the job of political parties to represent the public in parliament. If Labour and Green don't want to represent the majority of the NZ Public, than this is o.k. Just stay in opposition and somebody else will run the government. Just stop to blame others for your failure. However if you get at some stage bored from blaming everybody else for not getting elected, than maybe - just maybe you should look at yourself.

As NBT already mentioned - Shearer seems to be one of the people who understood that Labour can't win while excluding the centre. Good man, this Shearer. Just remind me, why Labour gave him the sack. Ah yes, I think he got only 35% in the polls and Cunliffe was a much better backstabber and really keen to exercise his powers (sounds like, he hasn't changed) ....

nextbigthing
21-09-2014, 06:27 PM
Cunliffe not resigning confirms one thing. He wants to be leader to satisfy his ego.
Interestingly Shearer 35% Greens 10% Winnie 10% hey presto. What could have been.

elZorro
21-09-2014, 06:29 PM
Hi EZ,

Actually - I would love for New Zealand to have a credible alternative on the centre left side of the spectrum. However, if I read your comments, David Cunliffe's tirades, Leila's excuses and the weak analysis from the Green co-leaders, than I get the impression the Left thinks it is just the NZ voter who erred. Sounds like the Left thinks the NZ public must be stupid (or mediocre, or kidded by some PR company) that they choose not to follow your hard left teachings.

Is this really the way you think? Is the Left always right (excuse the pun) and everybody else stupid?

Look - it is not the job of the NZ public to do your (or Labours, or the Greens) bidding. It is the job of political parties to represent the public in parliament. If Labour and Green don't want to represent the majority of the NZ Public, than this is o.k. Just stay in opposition and somebody else will run the government. Just stop to blame others for your failure. However if you get at some stage bored from blaming everybody else for not getting elected, than maybe - just maybe you should look at yourself.

As NBT already mentioned - Shearer seems to be one of the people who understood that Labour can't win while excluding the centre. Good man, this Shearer. Just remind me, why Labour gave him the sack. Ah yes, I think he got only 35% in the polls and Cunliffe was a much better backstabber and really keen to exercise his powers (sounds like, he hasn't changed) ....

Sorry BP, I can't leave this without a reply. You obviously haven't looked at Labour policies, they are not hard left at all. David Shearer didn't warm up to the cameras enough, he would have been mincemeat in the final debates with John Key. Nicky Hager's book put a serious dent in public perception of National by the public, but as we saw, only for a couple of weeks. Astoundingly, the Crosby-Textor instructions for John Key and others, worked. The public moved on - believed John Key - even though he was severely shaken at first. When he came out in front of the cameras the day after the book release, that was not the look of an innocent person. He must have known all about what was going on, it was written on his face.

But Crosby-Textor and others would have reminded him, that just like it took years to poison the perception of NZers towards Labour and the Greens using right-wing bloggers and Mr Nice Guy tactics, it would also take years to change them back towards Labour, so he just had to bluff his way through.

That's something that David Cunliffe can't say, but I'll say it. If the NZ public and the press are collectively too facile to look behind propaganda to find the real story, then the best political strategists will win elections every time. No matter how dubious their message is. How Labour is going to get the cash together to pay for better strategists, better campaign ads, should consume a lot of their thinking for the next three years. They already have better policies, and a more real team. One that looks like NZ.

Harvey Specter
21-09-2014, 06:43 PM
Sorry BP, I can't leave this without a reply. You obviously haven't looked at Labour policies, they are not hard left at all. Free healthcare to over 65's (one of the richest demographics) and effectively renationalising the generation market aren't hard left? The only reason you dont think so is because Key has gone beyond the centre into lefts territory by maintaining Labours WFF and extending free healthcare to under 13'.

minimoke
21-09-2014, 07:00 PM
Free healthcare to over 65's (one of the richest demographics) and effectively renationalising the generation market aren't hard left? The only reason you dont think so is because Key has gone beyond the centre into lefts territory by maintaining Labours WFF and extending free healthcare to under 13'.
Exactly. National are just as far left as Labour so its not an issue of left right politics. Its simply down to NZ not liking the Labour brand. Saturdays nights speech by Cunliffe when he gave a big tick to the Pacific Islanders summed up up really - he is so out of touch that he thinks Labour can win with the PI vote. Wrong. Labour needs to bring all New Zealanders along for the ride.

winner69
21-09-2014, 07:07 PM
Labour leadership battle

This could it make it interesting

National leader John Key said today he didn't expect the special vote count to change National's 61-seat result. But he predicted the official result may see may take one seat taken off Labour and handed to the Greens.

That would see Labour's Andrew Little out and the Green's Steffan Browning coming back in.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11328942

iceman
21-09-2014, 07:09 PM
Well yes, it was a sombre mood in the local Labour HQ as the results came in. There were quite a few there though, quite a good team got together in the end. Being keen on stats, I have charted the last four elections for overall votes, and it's very interesting.

About 90% of the party votes are always split up between National, Labour, Greens and NZFirst. So only one in ten voters selects a minority party on average. If there are too many of them, as we had last night, none of them get over 5%.

I have read through all the comments briefly, and can't agree with many of them. I'm pleased most noted that David Cunliffe carried himself well in defeat. He has really matured during this campaign.

Craic, send me a PM and I'll pay out on the bet pronto, you won fair and square.

Hoop, thanks for the analysis. I'm not going to get much back from iPredict, but I'll be pushing for someone else to be closing off their reports next election. The cheeky sods got away with it this year.

As to the result, I don't think it was anything to do with policies. I say this because National is leaving very poor stats in their wake in many cases, and Labour's policies would undoubtedly have helped out most NZers. Some of you breathed a sigh of relief about a CGT not coming through. Newsflash, we'll get one sooner or later, the country will have to get in more tax revenue to keep offering services to a rising and aging population.

No, what we are seeing here is not the result of National doing such a great job of governing the country. It is more likely that the use of Crosby-Textor as campaign managers over the last ten years, has moved public perception their way, and this process is still happening. Elections are won on perception, and National is using one of the world's leading neo-liberal campaign teams to get their message out.

With an increasing mandate, and being careful to not make any noises about what they're up to next, I'm fearful of what will be around the corner for lower and middle NZ. Trickle down? I don't think so. Trickle up, more likely.

Yes I am sure it would have been a sombre night at your local Labour HQ. Same as my electorate where Maryan Street finally got kicked out of parliament. Good riddance
It is noticable that nowhere in your post do you accept that Labour lost because Labour completely lost touch with center N Z. It is what this all boils down to and Labour can not rebuild its broken organisation without first accepting that fact. The longer it takes the more time Key will have to cement his grip in the middle ground with his new Government which I expect to be very centrist with an eye on winning 2017

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 07:12 PM
Sorry BP, I can't leave this without a reply. You obviously haven't looked at Labour policies, they are not hard left at all. David Shearer didn't warm up to the cameras enough, he would have been mincemeat in the final debates with John Key. Nicky Hager's book put a serious dent in public perception of National by the public, but as we saw, only for a couple of weeks. Astoundingly, the Crosby-Textor instructions for John Key and others, worked. The public moved on - believed John Key - even though he was severely shaken at first. When he came out in front of the cameras the day after the book release, that was not the look of an innocent person. He must have known all about what was going on, it was written on his face.

But Crosby-Textor and others would have reminded him, that just like it took years to poison the perception of NZers towards Labour and the Greens using right-wing bloggers and Mr Nice Guy tactics, it would also take years to change them back towards Labour, so he just had to bluff his way through.

That's something that David Cunliffe can't say, but I'll say it. If the NZ public are collectively too facile to look behind propaganda to find the real story, then the best political strategists will win elections every time. No matter how dubious their message is. How Labour is going to get the cash together to pay for better strategists, better campaign ads, should consume a lot of their thinking for the next three years. They already have better policies, and a more real team. One that looks like NZ.


eZ: Far be it from me to try and rationalise anything with you - I've given up, your mind is locked into seeing Labour as always right and National as wrong, their followers as mean etc - but just one point, try and get over your paranoia with some advertising agency or whatever they are. All firms and organisations of any standing use them, get training from them, and get advice on how to handle anything controversial that arises. Your beloved Labour party will have media trainers and PR people. But for their opponents to worry about who or what they are is ridiculous. Do you stop to consider who Watties ad. agency is before you buy Baked Beans? I'm quite sure your ramblings on this point do not impress anybody.

craic
21-09-2014, 07:17 PM
I went out to a concert and a meal with my wife and six of our friends, all staunch Labour supporters today. Two stunned me by confessing that they had voted for Garth McVicar because he is known here and has a reputation. One other changed her vote away from Labour because, as a Maori, she could not live with the idea of Hone Harawira and Dot Com etc. added to a Labour Government. The other three didn't comment but just enjoyed the outing.I have no doubt that Dotcom and his associates have had a significantly detrimental effect on the outcome of this election. Possibly the best result will be the hurried exit of KDC from the land.

slimwin
21-09-2014, 07:53 PM
Your in denial EZ. If the labour party leadership does the same then it will be a fourth term national govt. Take that from an ex labour voter who can't see a reason to turn back. And thats after looking at the policies. The left lost this election by convincing themselves they are in touch with the people. Clearly they are not. For example, the unions have too much say in the party. Maybe 95% of my work is in a union but very few vote labour. They're only in the union for the collective bargaining yet the unions steer party policy like they have the people behind them.

elZorro
21-09-2014, 08:05 PM
eZ: Far be it from me to try and rationalise anything with you - I've given up, your mind is locked into seeing Labour as always right and National as wrong, their followers as mean etc - but just one point, try and get over your paranoia with some advertising agency or whatever they are. All firms and organisations of any standing use them, get training from them, and get advice on how to handle anything controversial that arises. Your beloved Labour party will have media trainers and PR people. But for their opponents to worry about who or what they are is ridiculous. Do you stop to consider who Watties ad. agency is before you buy Baked Beans? I'm quite sure your ramblings on this point do not impress anybody.

Who said I was rambling? If you're so sure I'm wrong, do your own research on Crosby-Textor. I know Nicky Hager did, so just read The Hollow Men for a start. Here's their webpage on Campaigns (http://www.crosbytextor.com/campaigns/), where they state they know all about social media and other techniques. They work with the Liberal Party in Aussie. They are thought to be behind the idea of pretending that boat refugees being rescued by a ship offshore of Australia had been thrown overboard by their families, in a bid to ensure asylum. In fact their boat had sunk. The Liberal Party used this nonsense to help win an election.

Sgt Pepper
21-09-2014, 08:08 PM
Go easy on eZ. He's on sick leave today.

Fp

I have spent the day sulking and by tomorrow should have finished eating all my humble pie!
Regards
SP

Major von Tempsky
21-09-2014, 08:09 PM
"Nicky Hager's book put a serious dent in public perception of National by the public, but as we saw, only for a couple of weeks".

There's a deliciously enjoyable picture on the Internet of Nicky Hager's book "Dirty Politics" at a desperate book sale where DPs is reduced from $34.50 to $17.50.
Nice. He only sold a few thou....

If there is a next book he'll be right into laws of diminishing returns and it will be even more of a disaster than DPs. Actually it turned out to benefit National and maybe we should implore "Dear Nicky, please write us another one just before the 2017 election". The great mass of the public, well over 80% regarded it as as a nasty left wing smear campaign that was probably nearly all untrue and if any of it was true it was greatly exaggerated. Funnily enough I never actually met anyone at the tennis club, or the various societies and associations I belong to who had actually read the thing!
R.I.P. Nicky Hager. Luckily for him he has a great deal of inherited wealth so he doesn't have to work so he doesn't. Rosemary (Mcleod is it? the columnist in the Press etc) disputed that he was referred to as a journalist at all because none of her profession had ever seen or heard of him working as a journalist. As for the "investigative" it merely consisted of him receiving some stolen emails from DotCom and publishing them!

A modest suggestion to you EZ, it is way way past time that the Labour Party updated its name. The number of labouring jobs is minuscule, there are more farm labourers than any other type and they vote National anyway! Something modern and European and progressive like the Social Democrats and you could cut the union link at the same time as only a small minority belong to unionists and unions are regarded as something quaint and really antiquated from Charles Dickens times. A painless, costless move like that would do wonders for yor image and credibility!

craic
21-09-2014, 08:09 PM
As a pensioner, I have a Community services card and on thursday last paid $15 for my doctors visit. My various pills and potions are free because my wife and I have gone past a certain limit and we no longer pay for the rest of the year. We don't need any further freebies. elZorro, I have posted pm to you.

nextbigthing
21-09-2014, 09:20 PM
Labour supporters, take this on board

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10525538/David-Cunliffes-leadership-on-the-line

fungus pudding
22-09-2014, 07:05 AM
Your in denial EZ. If the labour party leadership does the same then it will be a fourth term national govt. Take that from an ex labour voter who can't see a reason to turn back. And thats after looking at the policies. The left lost this election by convincing themselves they are in touch with the people. Clearly they are not. For example, the unions have too much say in the party. Maybe 95% of my work is in a union but very few vote labour. They're only in the union for the collective bargaining yet the unions steer party policy like they have the people behind them.

I have no doubt that National will be a four term govt. This was the tricky one for them, but the opposition is destroyed. It will take a term or two for Greens - Labour to sort themselves out. Winston will be in his zimmer frame. The only thing likely to arise and it's a big maybe, is some sort of Conservative party if they can drop some of their policies. Most likely they would not join Greens - Labour.
I really think Labour is in it's dying days - it needs to drop its Union connections and rebrand itself. The image it portrays is from a bygone era. Cunliffe made his biggest mistake when he declared 'The Labour I lead will be a RED Labour'.

Banksie
22-09-2014, 08:12 AM
Thanks for the debate leading up to the elections. I went into this one a lot better informed.

My preferred party didn't do as well as expected, and the result wasn't the one I wanted - but my electorate did quite well with 3 representatives in parliament.

Hopefully the lesson learnt from this election is to keep future ones cleaner, so we can focus on the issues instead of the sideshows.

Sgt Pepper
22-09-2014, 08:27 AM
I have no doubt that National will be a four term govt. This was the tricky one for them, but the opposition is destroyed. It will take a term or two for Greens - Labour to sort themselves out. Winston will be in his zimmer frame. The only thing likely to arise and it's a big maybe, is some sort of Conservative party if they can drop some of their policies. Most likely they would not join Greens - Labour.
I really think Labour is in it's dying days - it needs to drop its Union connections and rebrand itself. The image it portrays is from a bygone era. Cunliffe made his biggest mistake when he declared 'The Labour I lead will be a RED Labour'.


from the Guardian after their massive defeat by Labour in 2002 UK election

"But the election debacle and Hague's decision to go will force the party to do some hard thinking, not just about its leadership but about its policies. The Tories appear to have lost touch with the mass support required to win an election.




http://edition.cnn.com/images/icons/popup.orange.gif
RESOURCE




Possible Tory leaders











Before the campaign began, Hague was criticised for jumping on too many short-term bandwagons in his efforts to please the media and land a blow on Labour. Once the campaign began, there was little consistency in the chosen targets day by day."


By 2009 they swept back into power. Be careful of premature obituaries

fungus pudding
22-09-2014, 08:41 AM
Thanks for the debate leading up to the elections. I went into this one a lot better informed.

My preferred party didn't do as well as expected, and the result wasn't the one I wanted - but my electorate did quite well with 3 representatives in parliament.

Hopefully the lesson learnt from this election is to keep future ones cleaner, so we can focus on the issues instead of the sideshows.

Each electorate only has one MP. You can't have three.

Banksie
22-09-2014, 08:46 AM
Each electorate only has one MP. You can't have three.

Only has one elected MP sure, but if the others make it through as list MPs?

fungus pudding
22-09-2014, 08:46 AM
from the Guardian after their massive defeat by Labour in 2002 UK election

"But the election debacle and Hague's decision to go will force the party to do some hard thinking, not just about its leadership but about its policies. The Tories appear to have lost touch with the mass support required to win an election.




http://edition.cnn.com/images/icons/popup.orange.gif
RESOURCE




Possible Tory leaders











Before the campaign began, Hague was criticised for jumping on too many short-term bandwagons in his efforts to please the media and land a blow on Labour. Once the campaign began, there was little consistency in the chosen targets day by day."


By 2009 they swept back into power. Be careful of premature obituaries

The difference is Labour and the Greens spout different policies with neither strong enough to make absolute promises. e.g. top tax rate Labour 36% Greens 40%. Needs sorting out, which means a new amalgamated party or some agreed policy arrangement.

Sgt Pepper
22-09-2014, 08:55 AM
The difference is Labour and the Greens spout different policies with neither strong enough to make absolute promises. e.g. top tax rate Labour 36% Greens 40%. Needs sorting out, which means a new amalgamated party or some agreed policy arrangement.

Thats true. There are some good things about not having a coalition government. National will not have to be coerced into partner pet projects which the poor old tax payer has to fund e.g the Constitutional Convention, Whanau Ora, the Family Commission (or whatever it was called) to name but a few.

fungus pudding
22-09-2014, 09:05 AM
Only has one elected MP sure, but if the others make it through as list MPs?


I presume you mean by the others, that they reside in that electorate. Regardless - a list MP has no special duties or ties to any electorate, and in no way represents an electorate. You can bend the ear of any list MP no matter where you or they live.

Banksie
22-09-2014, 09:16 AM
You can bend the ear of any list MP no matter where you or they live.

Ah..........

westerly
22-09-2014, 10:39 AM
How I see it.

1) People in the center/right don't like David Cunliffe. They view him as divisive, arrogant, slimy and incompetent. Slimy and arrogant you might get away with, but not incompetent. He needs to go for Labour to have a chance (example writing the CGT policy then not even being able to answer questions on it before the election, people don't like that).

2) Labour needs to stop pandering to every minority group they can think of. They have alienated the 'average nzer' making them feel that there's nothing in it for them voting Labour. Example, David cunliffes speech at the Labour event last night. I got the impression he was about to announce a name change of the Labour party to the pacific island party there was such a strong theme with what he was saying and the pacific drums in the background. That's fine but the majority of nzers aren't pacific islanders and feel they're not represented. That's just one example but it's this constant social engineering that just annoys people. It's great if your a minimum wage earning pacific lesbian midget vegetarian (truely no offense at all intended to anyone) but the majority of nzers aren't.

I can't find the article on stuff now but Shearer and Cosgrove have come out saying exactly this. That the bulk of the policy is OK, just Labour are just out of touch with what people actually want.

You don't have to agree with this. You may think we'll it's Labour policy to represent these people so well stick with it and stand up for ourselves. That's fine but be prepared to do it as a minority party as proven by recent results.

el Z, ignore what Shearer and Cosgrove are saying at Labours peril!

Interesting how the Nat. supporters are all full of advice for Labour and the Greens. Interesting how the maybe orchestrated campaign to take every opportunity to run down Shearer and then Cunliffe is continuing. Focus on the man not the policies the dirty tricks were ongoing long before Hager. Re the first paragraph.
I am sure EZ is correct in his observations.
However it was obvious long before the election that Labour was struggling and Shearer and Cosgrove are correct in their reported comments that there is a need for Labour to connect with the average person. Robertson for that reason would not be a good choice as leader.
The Nats got 49% of the vote. 51% did not want them and a million did not vote, As they say we live in interesting times.

westerly

fungus pudding
22-09-2014, 10:45 AM
Interesting how the Nat. supporters are all full of advice for Labour and the Greens. Interesting how the maybe orchestrated campaign to take every opportunity to run down Shearer and then Cunliffe is continuing. Focus on the man not the policies the dirty tricks were ongoing long before Hager. Re the first paragraph.
I am sure EZ is correct in his observations.
However it was obvious long before the election that Labour was struggling and Shearer and Cosgrove are correct in their reported comments that there is a need for Labour to connect with the average person. Robertson for that reason would not be a good choice as leader.
The Nats got 49% of the vote. 51% did not want them and a million did not vote, As they say we live in interesting times.

westerly


It's simplistic and probably inaccurate to say 51% of voters didn't want the winning party when there were seven parties whose votes counted. 49% is a massive endorsement, and I daresay the non-voters in the main do not vote because they're satisfied with the status quo. An unpopular govt. would bring a fair number out of the woodwork. Preferential voting would be interesting.

blackcap
22-09-2014, 10:56 AM
The Nats got 49% of the vote. 51% did not want them and a million did not vote, As they say we live in interesting times.

westerly

I did not vote Nats, but did want them to be the government. Plenty of people like me who did not vote Nats that I know that still wanted a Nat govt.

nextbigthing
22-09-2014, 01:34 PM
Interesting how the Nat. supporters are all full of advice for Labour and the Greens.

westerly

Just trying to help and offer the view of the majority of the country which is obviously different to yours.

Feel free to ignore it. Labour have and look where it has gotten them. Good luck.

craic
22-09-2014, 02:51 PM
My simple advice to the Greens and Labour would be, give up now and join the National Party. That way you can at least have the pleasure of being on the winning side before the memory of the last time you were there becomes too old and fades away.

Sgt Pepper
22-09-2014, 03:10 PM
My simple advice to the Greens and Labour would be, give up now and join the National Party. That way you can at least have the pleasure of being on the winning side before the memory of the last time you were there becomes too old and fades away.

Craic

Sorry probably wont happen, you see one party states tend to have rather unsavory reputations. Secondly bear in mind my reference to the British Conservative party as I have posted earlier, in 2002 after being obliterated by Tony Blair the Tories were universally being consigned to the dustbin of history and the UK would have perpetual Labour administrations. Yet 7 years later they were back in power. As I said be very careful about premature obituaries. We now live in a dynamic fast changing world, peoples attention spans and loyalty are very, shall we say , fluid."Rooster one day feather duster the next"

craic
22-09-2014, 03:38 PM
If you continue to take yourself as seriously as you take me then you'll be under the psychiatrist before you have the chance to enjoy the great benefits of a stable, long-term right wing government. And it wouldn't be a one-party state anyway, Winston and the Legalise Cannabis party would be in opposition.

stones
22-09-2014, 03:43 PM
If you continue to take yourself as seriously as you take me then you'll be under the psychiatrist before you have the chance to enjoy the great benefits of a stable, long-term right wing government. And it wouldn't be a one-party state anyway, Winston and the Legalise Cannabis party would be in opposition.
Not to mention the possible resurgence of McGillycuddy Serious Party craic.

Minerbarejet
22-09-2014, 04:37 PM
Just a refresher course.:):)
The Mcgillycuddy Serious Party manifesto


Free dung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces)
Sending out intelligence agents around the world to wipe New Zealand off published maps, thus ensuring that no-one could invade the country.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-8)
Standing a dog for parliament in the Hobson seat in Northland. Her policies included the abolition of cars, and turning a meat-works into an organic flea-powder factory.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-9)
The abolition of money, replacing it with chocolate fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_fish) or with sand.
The demolition of The Beehive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(building)), parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_New_Zealand) buildings, and all other buildings on a last-up, first-down basis.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-CandidateProfiles-10)
The diversion of aluminium production away from building US military aircraft and missiles to build giant space-mirrors to melt the polar icecaps and destroy all of the foolish greed-worshipping cities of man in one stroke, thereby returning man to the sea, which he should never have left in the first place (this the inspiration of the Admiral of the Highland Navy Aaron Franklin).
Raising the school leaving-age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_leaving_age) to 65 (after Parliament raised the school leaving-age by one unambitious year)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-CandidateProfiles-10)
Full unemployment, or full employment through slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-11)
Using beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer) as a National Defence strategy: leaving bottles of beer on all beaches, so that any invading army would abandon its attack and get drunk while the broken bottles would prevent the army advancing any further.
Restricting the vote to minors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)): i.e., ONLY those under 18 years of age could vote (announced when Parliament lowered the voting age to 18 years). The party ran its 1993 electoral advertisements during children's programming.
Student loans for Plunket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunket) (or Kindergarten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindergarten)) attendance: prior to the 1984 election, David Lange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lange)'s Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) promised to maintain free tertiary education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education), but the Education Minister, Phil Goff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Goff), introduced student fees when elected. National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) education spokesman Lockwood Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockwood_Smith) promised a return to free education if elected, but did not carry out this promise. Most party supporters, many of them students, felt displeased that both major political parties had deemed free tertiary education unsustainable, but had deliberately lied about their intentions to attract votes.
Abandoning male suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage): New Zealand, the first nation to achieve women's suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage) (in 1893), made a big deal of the centenary of this at the time of the 1993 election.
Full hedgehog suffrage: after a goat successfully received nomination in a local body election on Waiheke Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiheke_Island), the party unsuccessfully attempted to stand a hedgehog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog) for Parliament, apparently solely in order to make "prick" jokes.
Votes for trees: New Zealanders have a reputation as environmentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism), and the University of Auckland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Auckland)'s ex-Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) law lecturer Klaus Bosselmann seriously advocated giving trees (and other bits of the environment) some legal standing. The party could not decide on whether native trees should have the option to vote in Māori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people) electorates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district), whether male trees as well as female trees should vote, and on the status of shrubs.
The demolition of the Auckland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland) CBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district) to create a giant sundial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial), using the Sky Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Tower) as the gnomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomon); or to protect the Sky Tower by placing a condom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom) over it.
Replacing the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Armoured_Corps) with Mounted Knights, claimed as more modern. The New Zealand Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Army)'s outdated equipment became a constant source of quips and embarrassment in the 1990s — at the time Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Alexandra%27s_Mounted_Rifles) operated FV101 Scorpions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) and M-113s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier).
Building dreadnoughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought) in the Tamaki Estuary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamaki_River): a reference to the Royal New Zealand Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Navy)'s controversial purchase of Anzac class frigates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_class_frigate).
An All Whites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Whites) victory in the Football World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup): both the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) and the National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) used the All Blacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Blacks)' victory in the 1987 Rugby World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Rugby_World_Cup) in their 1990 campaigning — the All Whites stood about as much chance of winning the Football World Cup as Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_national_rugby_union_team) have of winning the Rugby version.
An indecent society: Jim Bolger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bolger)'s National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) used the slogan "A Decent Society".
A potato famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_famine_(disambiguation)): Jim Bolger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bolger)'s somewhat pock-marked countenance bore an unfortunate resemblance to a potato. Much to his displeasure, he became widely known as "Spud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Etymology)"; the Royal New Zealand Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force), with a typicallyKiwi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_(people)) lack of reverence, christened his Boeing 727 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727) "Spud One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_One)".
Limiting the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) to 100 km/h: 50 km/h in Mt Roskill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Roskill,_New_Zealand), (Auckland's Bible Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt)), because folks there preferred to stay less enlightened.
Linking the North Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island) and South Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Island) by bulldozing the Southern Alps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Alps) into Cook Strait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Strait).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-12)
Post-natal abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion): making abortion illegal, but any mother could kill her child up to the age of 18, provided she did it with her own hands. The party designed this policy to offend all sides in the abortion debate. Thefundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist) Christian Heritage Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_New_Zealand) used abortion as a major policy.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-CandidateProfiles-10)
Mandatory homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) for 33% of the population — also devised to annoy the fundamentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalists).
Free castration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration)
Setting up a Frivolous Fraud Office to investigate any fraud deemed too silly for the Serious Fraud Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Fraud_Office_(New_Zealand))
Air bags (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bag) for the New Zealand Stock Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Stock_Exchange) (following the 1987 stock market crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_crash))
Replacing the Queen's chain (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen%27s_chain&action=edit&redlink=1) with hemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp): the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) had a policy of protecting and extending the Queen's chain (publicly accessible land bordering watercourses), forcing farmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer) and iwi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwi) to allow public access to waterways. Candidate Dominic Worthington (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominic_Worthington&action=edit&redlink=1) proposed replacing the chain with more environmentally sound hemp; with the Queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant), of course, replaced by Prince Geoffie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Geoffie) the reluctant. Rather than limiting the chain to protecting water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) in aqueous form, the King's hemp would also serve to hold together water in solid form, as in the ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice) in glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier) and in the Ross Dependency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Dependency) (in particular, the Ross Ice Shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ice_Shelf), alleviating environmentalists' concerns that the ice shelf might collapse and raise sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea)-levels). Ultimately, the policy envisaged that technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) would regress far enough for it to become feasible to lasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasso) water in gaseous form (i.e. clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds)).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-13)
Fixing accountants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountant) in concrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete) and using them as traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic) barriers, occasionally accompanied by a pledge to steal some of the Monster Raving Loony Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party)'s other policies as well — possibly a reference to political parties accusing each other of stealing policies, or possibly just silliness.
Good weather (but only if voters behaved).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-14)
Full employment by carpeting the national highways: this would also save wear and tear on tyres
Breaking its promises

Major von Tempsky
22-09-2014, 05:03 PM
Given that the Labour Party has said at least twice since the election that their model for a revival is what the National Party did when it rebounded from 22% then I think its a bit rich to say you won't take any advice from National voters. If they are serious they should studying everything the National Party did after 2005 to the point of sending in spies to read their organization files. But I expect it is just mouthing and the Labour Party will hive off in all directions at once as usual. They just don't have the self discipline, the dedication, the attention to detail, the organization that National has. They can't even be bothered to mount serious fund raising efforts. Just a matter of time before some other opposition party takes their place.

"The Nats got 49% of the vote. 51% did not want them and a million did not vote," That's a piece of simple minded attempted sophistry. National got 48.1%, add in ACT, UF, and pro National Maoris that's 50.4%, add in the Conservatives that's 54.5% who are/were very happy to go into coalition with National and would have voted National if their own parties had not existed. Then put Winston into an old peoples home and at least half his vote would go to National, that makes a total of 59%. A million didn't vote? That's their own silly fault they disenfranchised themselves and they can't complain no matter what happens.

Joshuatree
22-09-2014, 05:40 PM
Proud to say i allowed Graham Cairns? to put a billboard up on my roadside at one election when he stood for Mcgillycuddys in Tauranga ,way back and he was serious lol.
Just a refresher course.:):)
The Mcgillycuddy Serious Party manifesto


Free dung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces)
Sending out intelligence agents around the world to wipe New Zealand off published maps, thus ensuring that no-one could invade the country.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-8)
Standing a dog for parliament in the Hobson seat in Northland. Her policies included the abolition of cars, and turning a meat-works into an organic flea-powder factory.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-9)
The abolition of money, replacing it with chocolate fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_fish) or with sand.
The demolition of The Beehive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(building)), parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_New_Zealand) buildings, and all other buildings on a last-up, first-down basis.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-CandidateProfiles-10)
The diversion of aluminium production away from building US military aircraft and missiles to build giant space-mirrors to melt the polar icecaps and destroy all of the foolish greed-worshipping cities of man in one stroke, thereby returning man to the sea, which he should never have left in the first place (this the inspiration of the Admiral of the Highland Navy Aaron Franklin).
Raising the school leaving-age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_leaving_age) to 65 (after Parliament raised the school leaving-age by one unambitious year)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-CandidateProfiles-10)
Full unemployment, or full employment through slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-11)
Using beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer) as a National Defence strategy: leaving bottles of beer on all beaches, so that any invading army would abandon its attack and get drunk while the broken bottles would prevent the army advancing any further.
Restricting the vote to minors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)): i.e., ONLY those under 18 years of age could vote (announced when Parliament lowered the voting age to 18 years). The party ran its 1993 electoral advertisements during children's programming.
Student loans for Plunket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunket) (or Kindergarten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindergarten)) attendance: prior to the 1984 election, David Lange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lange)'s Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) promised to maintain free tertiary education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education), but the Education Minister, Phil Goff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Goff), introduced student fees when elected. National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) education spokesman Lockwood Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockwood_Smith) promised a return to free education if elected, but did not carry out this promise. Most party supporters, many of them students, felt displeased that both major political parties had deemed free tertiary education unsustainable, but had deliberately lied about their intentions to attract votes.
Abandoning male suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage): New Zealand, the first nation to achieve women's suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage) (in 1893), made a big deal of the centenary of this at the time of the 1993 election.
Full hedgehog suffrage: after a goat successfully received nomination in a local body election on Waiheke Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiheke_Island), the party unsuccessfully attempted to stand a hedgehog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog) for Parliament, apparently solely in order to make "prick" jokes.
Votes for trees: New Zealanders have a reputation as environmentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism), and the University of Auckland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Auckland)'s ex-Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) law lecturer Klaus Bosselmann seriously advocated giving trees (and other bits of the environment) some legal standing. The party could not decide on whether native trees should have the option to vote in Māori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people) electorates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district), whether male trees as well as female trees should vote, and on the status of shrubs.
The demolition of the Auckland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland) CBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district) to create a giant sundial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial), using the Sky Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Tower) as the gnomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomon); or to protect the Sky Tower by placing a condom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom) over it.
Replacing the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Armoured_Corps) with Mounted Knights, claimed as more modern. The New Zealand Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Army)'s outdated equipment became a constant source of quips and embarrassment in the 1990s — at the time Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Alexandra%27s_Mounted_Rifles) operated FV101 Scorpions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) and M-113s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier).
Building dreadnoughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought) in the Tamaki Estuary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamaki_River): a reference to the Royal New Zealand Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Navy)'s controversial purchase of Anzac class frigates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_class_frigate).
An All Whites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Whites) victory in the Football World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup): both the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) and the National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) used the All Blacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Blacks)' victory in the 1987 Rugby World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Rugby_World_Cup) in their 1990 campaigning — the All Whites stood about as much chance of winning the Football World Cup as Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_national_rugby_union_team) have of winning the Rugby version.
An indecent society: Jim Bolger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bolger)'s National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party) used the slogan "A Decent Society".
A potato famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_famine_(disambiguation)): Jim Bolger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bolger)'s somewhat pock-marked countenance bore an unfortunate resemblance to a potato. Much to his displeasure, he became widely known as "Spud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Etymology)"; the Royal New Zealand Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force), with a typicallyKiwi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_(people)) lack of reverence, christened his Boeing 727 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727) "Spud One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_One)".
Limiting the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) to 100 km/h: 50 km/h in Mt Roskill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Roskill,_New_Zealand), (Auckland's Bible Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt)), because folks there preferred to stay less enlightened.
Linking the North Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Island) and South Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Island) by bulldozing the Southern Alps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Alps) into Cook Strait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Strait).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-12)
Post-natal abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion): making abortion illegal, but any mother could kill her child up to the age of 18, provided she did it with her own hands. The party designed this policy to offend all sides in the abortion debate. Thefundamentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist) Christian Heritage Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_New_Zealand) used abortion as a major policy.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-CandidateProfiles-10)
Mandatory homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) for 33% of the population — also devised to annoy the fundamentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalists).
Free castration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration)
Setting up a Frivolous Fraud Office to investigate any fraud deemed too silly for the Serious Fraud Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Fraud_Office_(New_Zealand))
Air bags (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bag) for the New Zealand Stock Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Stock_Exchange) (following the 1987 stock market crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_crash))
Replacing the Queen's chain (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen%27s_chain&action=edit&redlink=1) with hemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp): the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party) had a policy of protecting and extending the Queen's chain (publicly accessible land bordering watercourses), forcing farmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer) and iwi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwi) to allow public access to waterways. Candidate Dominic Worthington (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominic_Worthington&action=edit&redlink=1) proposed replacing the chain with more environmentally sound hemp; with the Queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant), of course, replaced by Prince Geoffie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Geoffie) the reluctant. Rather than limiting the chain to protecting water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) in aqueous form, the King's hemp would also serve to hold together water in solid form, as in the ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice) in glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier) and in the Ross Dependency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Dependency) (in particular, the Ross Ice Shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ice_Shelf), alleviating environmentalists' concerns that the ice shelf might collapse and raise sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea)-levels). Ultimately, the policy envisaged that technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) would regress far enough for it to become feasible to lasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasso) water in gaseous form (i.e. clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds)).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-13)
Fixing accountants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountant) in concrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete) and using them as traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic) barriers, occasionally accompanied by a pledge to steal some of the Monster Raving Loony Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party)'s other policies as well — possibly a reference to political parties accusing each other of stealing policies, or possibly just silliness.
Good weather (but only if voters behaved).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party#cite_note-14)
Full employment by carpeting the national highways: this would also save wear and tear on tyres
Breaking its promises

elZorro
22-09-2014, 07:21 PM
JT, I have seen the mock battles the McGillicuddys ran at Waikato University from the late 70s. Back then Graeme Cairns was a slightly weird student. Very clever though.

MVT and FP, here is an article by Nicky Hager, that reminds us who National are in bed with.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/feature-archive/510105/Nats-secret-advisers-accused-of-dirty-tricks-across-Tasman

The National Party have recently admitted they are continuing to use the services of Crosby/Textor. A hollow victory indeed.

Sgt Pepper
22-09-2014, 07:21 PM
"Nicky Hager's book put a serious dent in public perception of National by the public, but as we saw, only for a couple of weeks".

There's a deliciously enjoyable picture on the Internet of Nicky Hager's book "Dirty Politics" at a desperate book sale where DPs is reduced from $34.50 to $17.50.
Nice. He only sold a few thou....

If there is a next book he'll be right into laws of diminishing returns and it will be even more of a disaster than DPs. Actually it turned out to benefit National and maybe we should implore "Dear Nicky, please write us another one just before the 2017 election". The great mass of the public, well over 80% regarded it as as a nasty left wing smear campaign that was probably nearly all untrue and if any of it was true it was greatly exaggerated. Funnily enough I never actually met anyone at the tennis club, or the various societies and associations I belong to who had actually read the thing!
R.I.P. Nicky Hager. Luckily for him he has a great deal of inherited wealth so he doesn't have to work so he doesn't. Rosemary (Mcleod is it? the columnist in the Press etc) disputed that he was referred to as a journalist at all because none of her profession had ever seen or heard of him working as a journalist. As for the "investigative" it merely consisted of him receiving some stolen emails from DotCom and publishing them!

A modest suggestion to you EZ, it is way way past time that the Labour Party updated its name. The number of labouring jobs is minuscule, there are more farm labourers than any other type and they vote National anyway! Something modern and European and progressive like the Social Democrats and you could cut the union link at the same time as only a small minority belong to unionists and unions are regarded as something quaint and really antiquated from Charles Dickens times. A painless, costless move like that would do wonders for yor image and credibility!

Major

If John Key were to ask your advice on economic policy initiatives/enhancements over the next 3 years what would the priorities be, now that they have been given all the political capital any government would want. The only signal so far is to reintroduce the industrial relations amendment bill.

winner69
22-09-2014, 08:03 PM
JT, I have seen the mock battles the McGillicuddys ran at Waikato University from the late 70s. Back then Graeme Cairns was a slightly weird student. Very clever though.

MVT and FP, here is an article by Nicky Hager, that reminds us who National are in bed with.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/feature-archive/510105/Nats-secret-advisers-accused-of-dirty-tricks-across-Tasman

The National Party have recently admitted they are continuing to use the services of Crosby/Textor. A hollow victory indeed.

So using Crosby Textor made all the difference then. Clever move if you want to win an election.

Other parties need to employ PR people who are just as clever to create a better perception of themselves in the eyes of the electorate.

Maybe Crosby Textor are aligned with the Neolibs. No doubt Nats are on that bandwagon as well, esp if you consider my definition of what Neo-liberalism is - "not an ideology but just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest.”

John is probably doing well in the eyes of his mates in the USA. They will be pleased with his progress, esp he manages to progress the TTPA by convincing some of our friends it is good for the world.

I'm not as distraught as you are at the Nats winning by such a margin (by default). Not a good outcome but the opposition parties stuffed up badly. You, me and others need to live with the consequences until we can right things somehow

nextbigthing
22-09-2014, 08:12 PM
You, me and others need to live with the consequences until we can right things somehow

Pun intended Winner?

winner69
22-09-2014, 08:24 PM
Pun intended Winner?

My mate Billy Bragg will shoot me for even mentioning the right

It did cheer me up on Sunday putting his CDs on full blast.

elZorro
22-09-2014, 09:08 PM
My mate Billy Bragg will shoot me for even mentioning the right

It did cheer me up on Sunday putting his CDs on full blast.

I'll have to get some of those CDs, W69.

The issue with employing PR people who are as "good" as Crosby/Textor is that they would have to be as underhand and despicable? And that's not Labour as I know it. My hope is that we can shame National into dropping Crosby/Textor, well before 2017.

Have a look at this graph, see the slippage for Labour from the 2005 election onwards, something I call the C/T effect. Note that National recovered nearly 20% of the party vote between 2002 and 2005, Brash's desperate use of C/T very nearly worked over a 10 month period. No wonder John Key was quick to sign them up again.

It also means that with good strategists and a bit of luck, Labour's position is not irrecoverable by 2017.

Sgt Pepper
22-09-2014, 09:51 PM
EZ
I seems John Key has announced there will be a referendum next year on changing the NZ Flag. What an astonishing waste of tax payers money, considering it could have conducted with the General election

elZorro
22-09-2014, 10:06 PM
EZ
It seems John Key has announced there will be a referendum next year on changing the NZ Flag. What an astonishing waste of tax payers money, considering it could have been conducted with the General election

Not at all, Sgt Pepper. Now John Key will be able to say that he has done something we'll remember him for. He's thought about changing the NZ flag.

That'll probably fix some of the poor metrics National has created, if we can just get a new flag. :t_down:

winner69
23-09-2014, 05:50 AM
EZ - John got his well done call, and no doubt the keep up the good work John message.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11329574

winner69
23-09-2014, 05:55 AM
I'll have to get some of those CDs, W69.

7.

Just go to Spotify

elZorro
23-09-2014, 06:24 AM
Another thing I've realised from the graphs above: when an outfit like C/T starts working for a party long term, you get a concentrated ongoing onslaught on the main opposition, and in NZ that was directed at Labour for the most part, with sideswipes at the Greens. It has also meant that since about 2005, the party vote has been heavily tied to the big four: National, Labour, Greens, NZ First. Over 90% of us vote there. Previous to that, we put another 10% of our votes into a range of smaller parties.

Eager to see their faces and names in the press, we now have a whole lot of people saying variously that National is the true way, or that the Labour party needs to find out what went wrong, fast. People like Josie Pagani (ex Labour candidate) and Federated Farmers' Bruce "That stream isn't polluted, I survived after putting my hand in it" Wills.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11329372

Mr Wills fails to mention that dairy farming is on the cusp of another lowered payout, that while their share of exports is up, it's mainly because general manufacturing has been clobbered by National policies. Farming doesn't soak up all the unemployed. Farming also appears to deliver little in the way of taxes for central government. Even the GST dairy farmers get paid by Fonterra to send through to govt, is promptly reclaimed by Fonterra, a farmer cooperative/union, as their goods are almost all exported.

More froth to confuse us, I'm afraid. Labour was smashed down - yet again - by the Crosby/Textor juggernaut. Wake up NZ.


p.s. It is with dismay that I see all of Belgarion's posts are gone, and this thread has now been attributed to Hoop, as he made the first reply. I'll miss your sparkling wit, Belgarion.

fungus pudding
23-09-2014, 06:55 AM
More froth to confuse us, I'm afraid. Labour was smashed down - yet again - by the Crosby/Textor juggernaut. Wake up NZ.




Your 'wake up NZ' call is misplaced. It's labour that has been delivered the wake up message.
You'll go to your grave bitter and grumpy eZ unless you change your attitude. You live in possibly the best country in the world, it's well run with an extremely popular govt.; and while it wasn't your choice it was overwhelmingly the voters' choice. And when all said and done, looking past the rhetoric, National and Labour aren't that far apart. This time around National was my choice - on other occasions I have voted Labour, and had they won I would not be moaning. That is democracy. Accept it. We don't have extreme parties. Look for the good - or moan your way to an early grave.

macduffy
23-09-2014, 07:34 AM
Now that there's no doubt that National has won isn't it about time that the "If" in this thread title was changed - or closed altogether? But then I suppose we'll get an "Election Post-Mortem" thread in its place!

;)

Sgt Pepper
23-09-2014, 09:03 AM
The sun is shining,its new years day
John Keys in power what more can we say
Stock markets booming and dividends do flow
as for Laila and Dot Com- what would they know!
but two years later much has changed and the people are mad
whats wrong John and Bill, why are you both so sad?
well the farmers are so angry and their support has decreased swiftly
as milk powder is now down to four dollars fifty
the Chinese are not buying, and Auckland property has crashed
and the married and mortgaged are being absolutely smashed
so Jim and Jemina,and
Stuart and Sally all go along to the rally
"John Key its all over!", youve made a complete hash!
this time when we vote its going to be for...Labour and Stuart Nash!

craic
23-09-2014, 09:05 AM
Thank you, elZorro, the bet has been honoured. I think the Labour Party should learn from the greatest PR in recorded history. I refer of course, to the decision of an American fizzy company to take the ancient legend of Saint Nicholas, Dress him up as a beaming old grandfather figure with bushy white beard in a bright red suit and plaster his images all over your trains and trucks so that generations of customers associate CocaCola with all the good things. There is no way till hell freezes over that Cunliffe would fit the bill but Shearer would b a lot closer. But there is a lesson to be learned.

couta1
23-09-2014, 09:31 AM
The sun is shining,its new years day
John Keys in power what more can we say
Stock markets booming and dividends do flow
as for Laila and Dot Com- what would they know!
but two years later much has changed and the people are mad
whats wrong John and Bill, why are you both so sad?
well the farmers are so angry and their support has decreased swiftly
as milk powder is now down to four dollars fifty
the Chinese are not buying, and Auckland property has crashed
and the married and mortgaged are being absolutely smashed
so Jim and Jemina,and
Stuart and Sally all go along to the rally
"John Key its all over!", youve made a complete hash!
this time when we vote its going to be for...Labour and Stuart Nash!
I love poetry which has a good dose of fantasy included.

elZorro
23-09-2014, 12:06 PM
Quick reply to all: I hope this thread stays up until at least the next election. If achived, all the work on posts will be lost.
Great poem Sgt Pepper, cheered me up. I like the look of Stuart Nash too. He probably didn't listen to head office too much. FP, I'm not that surprised National won, what is hard to take is that they achieved it in an underhand-bowling kind of a way, and with the tacit approval of most NZers. And their policies were crap. I think the strong feeling against a CGT was underground, but used to fire up responses in the MSM designed to delay the onset of a CGT, by whatever means.
Craic, good to see the cash arrived. Shearer was given a good chance, he's not as polished as Cunliffe. But we'll see what happens next.

nextbigthing
23-09-2014, 12:16 PM
Who gets your support for leader of Labour el Z?

winner69
23-09-2014, 12:35 PM
It will leave the public reaching one conclusion and one conclusion only. Barely three days have passed since the election and Labour is already even making a mess of how it handles the mess it made of the election.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11329992

Sgt Pepper
23-09-2014, 01:07 PM
It will leave the public reaching one conclusion and one conclusion only. Barely three days have passed since the election and Labour is already even making a mess of how it handles the mess it made of the election.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11329992

You think so Winner? believe me it pales in comparison with the dramas National went through when Don Brash was removed as party leader in 2006. Would have made Niccolo Machiavelli proud. How Bill English ever forgave John Key for the way he treated him is a great mystery.

nextbigthing
23-09-2014, 01:34 PM
It will leave the public reaching one conclusion and one conclusion only. Barely three days have passed since the election and Labour is already even making a mess of how it handles the mess it made of the election.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11329992

See nothing actually went wrong Winner. It's that bloody Crosby-Textor making us believe it all went wrong. Labour are right on track. Geez C-T are good aren't they.


(Light hearted joke. Calm please)

Hoop
23-09-2014, 01:34 PM
Quick reply to all: I hope this thread stays up until at least the next election. If achived, all the work on posts will be lost.
Great poem Sgt Pepper, cheered me up. I like the look of Stuart Nash too. He probably didn't listen to head office too much. FP, I'm not that surprised National won, what is hard to take is that they achieved it in an underhand-bowling kind of a way, and with the tacit approval of most NZers. And their policies were crap. I think the strong feeling against a CGT was underground, but used to fire up responses in the MSM designed to delay the onset of a CGT, by whatever means.
Craic, good to see the cash arrived. Shearer was given a good chance, he's not as polished as Cunliffe. But we'll see what happens next.

This thread was started by me.....and it is safe as far as I'm concerned...unless Labour gets in.....nah!! ELZ I'm only kidding:D

craic
23-09-2014, 02:31 PM
I would suggest a new thread entitled " Polly Tics, or How to Delouse a Parrot"

Sgt Pepper
23-09-2014, 02:50 PM
An orthonological guide to National

Classfication

1, Johnarium Keysanicus

Highest in the pecking order, adaptable and long living. Likes migrating at regular intervals to warmer climates especially Hawaii. Occasional enigmatic visits to Sydney. Repetitive calling sound of " at the end of the day"

2. Billarium Englisicus

Trustworthy, intelligent and patient. At one stage was severely pecked by above but all appears forgiven and well..for now anyway..we think.

3. Steveanica Joycearia

favourite of 1. remarakable likeness to Toad of Toad Hall.

4.Paularia Bennetica

outwardly positive and friendly with no apparent aggressive instincts... necessary traits when large and flightless however has been observed unobtrusively trying out JKs nest when he is away.

5. Peteria Dunneanicus

Supremely adaptable, long living and loyal. Remarkable bird this one migrated between several species prior to comfortising in his present environment. Only squawks occasionally. A warm feathered nest and regular feeding of both his stomach and his ego is all that he requires

nextbigthing
23-09-2014, 03:10 PM
Labouria voteria

Species now extinct.

Banksie
23-09-2014, 03:14 PM
5. Peteria Dunneanicus

Supremely adaptable, long living and loyal. Remarkable bird this one migrated between several species prior to comfortising in his present environment. Only squawks occasionally. A warm feathered nest and regular feeding of both his stomach and his ego is all that he requires

You didn't mention the magnificent silver crest.

elZorro
23-09-2014, 05:06 PM
You didn't mention the magnificent silver crest.

Great idea for a post, Sgt Pepper. I don't know why everyone thinks I have no sense of humour. I'm fine, if it's National we're poking the borax at. :)

elZorro
23-09-2014, 05:14 PM
Who gets your support for leader of Labour el Z?

At this stage, David Cunliffe for sure. I've met him, he's motivational, he handled John Key no problem. Shearer couldn't do that, but Shearer would be useful closer to the leader's position.

Maybe it's the campaign team that needs a small sortout, it's also far less damaging to the public perception.

fungus pudding
23-09-2014, 05:39 PM
At this stage, David Cunliffe for sure. I've met him, he's motivational, he handled John Key no problem. Shearer couldn't do that, but Shearer would be useful closer to the leader's position.



Yes. I'd certainly like to see Cunliffe retained as leader. In fact I'd send him a bigger donation than I sent Kelvin Davis.

P.S. And even more if he keeps McCarten on.

Joshuatree
23-09-2014, 06:15 PM
I lost some faith in him with his election night speech (or whoever wrote it). Could have kindled hope for a rebuild and bringing voters back but it seemed to me it was more about him then the party.But who would replace him? i like Shearer a lot but he wasn't effective as a leader.

minimoke
23-09-2014, 06:24 PM
5. Peteria Dunneanicus

Supremely adaptable, long living and loyal. Remarkable bird this one migrated between several species prior to comfortising in his present environment. Only squawks occasionally. A warm feathered nest and regular feeding of both his stomach and his ego is all that he requires
6. Judicus Collilingus. A chameleon type creature who on the surface seems quite tidy but is known for living on the dirtier side of the tracks. Has a sharp tongue which at times gets the species in trouble when used in the wrong places. Once seen at the front of the action but now likely rarely to be seen working from the back. Has been known to attempt relationships across species with an apparent attraction to species found on the Asian sub-continent. The species has evolved from having a strong right foot with talons specifically evolved for crushing subspecies to having a large left foot which is now found in a toothless mouth. A species likely to become extinct due to lack of oxygen in current environment however Professor T Mallard's work on bringing the species Labouria voteria may be of benifit

fungus pudding
23-09-2014, 06:25 PM
I lost some faith in him with his election night speech (or whoever wrote it). Could have kindled hope for a rebuild and bringing voters back but it seemed to me it was more about him then the party.But who would replace him? i like Shearer a lot but he wasn't effective as a leader.

Russel Norman will remain the leader of the opposition.

elZorro
23-09-2014, 08:36 PM
7. Gerratus Brownletica:

A rotund flightless bird that keeps several nests barely viable, appears to dislike working with nearby species to repair adjacent habitat, but would allow destruction of other habitat for resources. Aggressive towards Finnish versions of the species.

8. Simonius Bridgeria:

An elegant, well bred species with bright plumage and strutting nature. A relatively lazy and vacuous bird, that shows little cognitive awareness.

Vaygor1
23-09-2014, 10:19 PM
Who gets your support for leader of Labour el Z?
At this stage, David Cunliffe for sure. I've met him, he's motivational, he handled John Key no problem. Shearer couldn't do that, but Shearer would be useful closer to the leader's position.

Maybe it's the campaign team that needs a small sortout, it's also far less damaging to the public perception.

Good grief el Z.

David Cunliffe? ...... for sure?????
Only the campaign team at fault... maybe?
A small sort-out?
Less damaging to public perception?

El Z, the public are laughing. Don't you want them to stop?

Bobcat.
24-09-2014, 04:17 AM
Cunliffe is dead in the water. Grant Robertson is the leader of choice by the bonkers left wing faction of the Labour Party...they especially like the fact that he's so unashamed in his homosexual behaviour, and they would love to see a 'gay' prime minister, sadly believing that we New Zealanders could (and should!) be proud on the world stage of making such a 'progressive' move.

Their degenerate journalist mates have been softening the NZ public to this strategy for some time now with several glowing media tributes to how wonderful Robertson is -- from his days as political activist at Otago Uni (students association president), NZ Uni Association (vice-president), MFAT junior, image controller for Marion Hobbs, and Helen Clarke's sidekick from 2002. What's left out is that Robertson has a psychological disorder. His sexuality for example is a result of his inability to get intimate with the opposite sex...not helped by the influence of his domineering mother and the serious role modelling issues that he has with his father Doug Robertson (who in 1991 was thrown into prison for embezzlement, leaving his family destitute when Robertson Jnr was aged 20). Parental dysfunction is a cancer, and so is sexual dysfunction. Leadership dysfunction is their offspring.

http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/politics/interview-labour-deputy-grant-robertson/

But let's ignore any of Robertson's deep seated psychological issues, and instead portray him as such a nice chap, an astute and well balanced politician, a rugby-loving kiwi bloke that every Labour Party member (and eventually every NZ'er!) should admire....he did after-all meet his homosexual partner playing rugby, and so he really is quite the man's man, which must help NZ'ers to get comfortable voting for him, yes?

...and if anybody doesn't then he or she must be 'homophobic' and need of a stern reprimand and chastisement.

[n.b. if this post doesn't survive here uncensored then that will reveal a similar bias by the ST moderator towards such a view of deviant sexual practice and its impact on one's psychology and leadership being too politically incorrect and thereby 'unacceptable' for even off-market political discussion].

Has anyone else noticed? It's more or less illegal now to speak out against anyone who's 'openly gay', regardless of any related psychological issues they might have, and/or doubts as to their leadership suitability. It's not like skin-colour. Racism is a crime, and rightly so because we do not choose the colour of our skin, but this is very different. LGBT political activists are working hard and fast within the ranks of the Labour Party to get their politician of choice into the most influential position within this nation...which they see as furthering their cause to promote their brand of sexuality as NZ's preferred chosen lifestyle. Implementing that strategy they believe is just a matter of time.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_15763.php

Where do you stand? Remember that strong fish can swim against the current.

It is little wonder that only 18% of men now support the Labour Party. Michael Savage must be rolling over in his grave.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/labour_hits_new_low.html

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/michael-joseph-savage-biography

Minerbarejet
24-09-2014, 05:50 AM
7. Gerratus Brownletica:

A rotund flightless bird that keeps several nests barely viable, appears to dislike working with nearby species to repair adjacent habitat, but would allow destruction of other habitat for resources. Aggressive towards Finnish versions of the species.

8. Simonius Bridgeria:

An elegant, well bred species with bright plumage and strutting nature. A relatively lazy and vacuous bird, that shows little cognitive awareness.Cunliffus Davidii:
Facing extinction due to its inability to see any other colour but red. A major participant in background noise at the dawn chorus and is usually wet from being swamped. The male, regrettably, sometimes tries to attract attention by hiding behind the female.

elZorro
24-09-2014, 06:12 AM
Vaygor and MBJ: David Cunliffe did as good as could be expected in the debates, in fact he surprised many. Your perceptions are merely reflections of the press views since the election, and the press is firmly on the side of the incumbents, always has been.

Labour needs to look at neutralising the outside enemy, because there is no doubt in my mind that they have far better policies for NZ. I see no reason why David Parker and David Cunliffe can't be a Cullen-Clark type team, one that will endure for several years. They just need unequivocal support from everyone around them, so they can get on with the job. All those aspiring to be PM should have a good look at the job specs for the pay involved, and let David carry on, if he's keen.

Bobcat, I take great exception to your post, as it is just in your mind that gays have a psychological disorder. I have steadily learnt to take people as I find them, and some gay people are the most intelligent that you'd meet, anywhere. But you're one of the reasons I'd be uncomfortable with seeing Grant as the leader of the opposition, because there would be a constant barrage in the media from bigots like yourself. How would we get our main Labour messages out?

winner69
24-09-2014, 06:28 AM
For those who really want to change the government obviously hoping that useless opposition parties with no real direction is not an opposition

They may have to take matters into their own hands to effect change.

Do I sense greater level of protest, maybe civil disobedience, even the seeds of a revolution?

You for that EZ? One way of getting rid of those Neolibs.

nextbigthing
24-09-2014, 06:50 AM
el Z. David Cunliffe obviously has your vote and that's fine, but it should be fairly clear he doesn't have the support of the majority of NZers which is what he needs. Especially if you say their policy isn't an issue. He doesn't even have the support of half his colleagues. Meaning this infighting will continue which is a joke.
Parker would get destroyed by key. Robertson is going to turn away a large portion of voters. Shearer is great but seemingly doesn't have the wow factor.
IMHO Labour needs to try a Nash, Davies, Andern etc. Start fresh with someone not tied up in the previous battles and someone that the public doesn't view as 'tarnished' yet.
The other option would be to go for John Key :)

Banksie
24-09-2014, 07:31 AM
Bobcats rant...

Wow Bobcat, of all the things you have ever posted, most of which I don't agree with, this has to be the most offensive.

Why does it bother you what someone else's sexual preferences are?

elZorro
24-09-2014, 07:44 AM
For those who really want to change the government obviously hoping that useless opposition parties with no real direction is not an opposition

They may have to take matters into their own hands to effect change.

Do I sense greater level of protest, maybe civil disobedience, even the seeds of a revolution?

You for that EZ? One way of getting rid of those Neolibs.

Yes. A protest right to the steps of parliament, but no tractors involved.

Minerbarejet
24-09-2014, 07:53 AM
eZ,
Dont know what you think about this but beauty and intelligence are not survival traits. Otherwise the world would consist of entirely beautiful and intelligent people by now. Sexuality is a survival trait however and there is only one way of obtaining an ongoing supply of critters for the planet. Sure, homosexual and lesbian people may very well make good parents, but only with goods and services produced from the usual and in some cases, overused, channels. Homosexuality must be selfdefeating on a long term basis if left to proliferate.
If it became compulsory through legislation there would be cause for some concern.:)

BlackPeter
24-09-2014, 08:10 AM
Wow Bobcat, of all the things you have ever posted, most of which I don't agree with, this has to be the most offensive.

Why does it bother you what someone else's sexual preferences are?

Actually - I do value Bobcats input on many of the mining threads. Have however to agree that his recent post on Grant Robertson was unnecessary, highly inappropriate and offensive.

And apart from GR's sexual preferences (which are nobody's business than his and his partners - and absolutely irrelevant for this job), would I think that he might be a good choice for the next Labour leader ... certainly better than DC (though this is a quite low hurdle to jump).

Just my 2 cents - I am probably not the best person to determine the next Labour leader, though on second thoughts, I might quickly join a union and than vote for a pineapple - LOL.

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 08:15 AM
Cunliffe is dead in the water. Grant Robertson is the leader of choice by the bonkers left wing faction of the Labour Party...they especially like the fact that he's so unashamed in his homosexual behaviour, and they would love to see a 'gay' prime minister, sadly believing that we New Zealanders could (and should!) be proud on the world stage of making such a 'progressive' move.

Their degenerate journalist mates have been softening the NZ public to this strategy for some time now with several glowing media tributes to how wonderful Robertson is -- from his days as political activist at Otago Uni (students association president), NZ Uni Association (vice-president), MFAT junior, image controller for Marion Hobbs, and Helen Clarke's sidekick from 2002. What's left out is that Robertson has a psychological disorder. His sexuality for example is a result of his inability to get intimate with the opposite sex...not helped by the influence of his domineering mother and the serious role modelling issues that he has with his father Doug Robertson (who in 1991 was thrown into prison for embezzlement, leaving his family destitute when Robertson Jnr was aged 20). Parental dysfunction is a cancer, and so is sexual dysfunction. Leadership dysfunction is their offspring.

http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/politics/interview-labour-deputy-grant-robertson/

But let's ignore any of Robertson's deep seated psychological issues, and instead portray him as such a nice chap, an astute and well balanced politician, a rugby-loving kiwi bloke that every Labour Party member (and eventually every NZ'er!) should admire....he did after-all meet his homosexual partner playing rugby, and so he really is quite the man's man, which must help NZ'ers to get comfortable voting for him, yes?

...and if anybody doesn't then he or she must be 'homophobic' and need of a stern reprimand and chastisement.

[n.b. if this post doesn't survive here uncensored then that will reveal a similar bias by the ST moderator towards such a view of deviant sexual practice and its impact on one's psychology and leadership being too politically incorrect and thereby 'unacceptable' for even off-market political discussion].

Has anyone else noticed? It's more or less illegal now to speak out against anyone who's 'openly gay', regardless of any related psychological issues they might have, and/or doubts as to their leadership suitability. It's not like skin-colour. Racism is a crime, and rightly so because we do not choose the colour of our skin, but this is very different. LGBT political activists are working hard and fast within the ranks of the Labour Party to get their politician of choice into the most influential position within this nation...which they see as furthering their cause to promote their brand of sexuality as NZ's preferred chosen lifestyle. Implementing that strategy they believe is just a matter of time.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_15763.php

Where do you stand? Remember that strong fish can swim against the current.

It is little wonder that only 18% of men now support the Labour Party. Michael Savage must be rolling over in his grave.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/labour_hits_new_low.html

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/michael-joseph-savage-biography

Bobcat

Do think its not acceptable to have gay people in Parliament then?

minimoke
24-09-2014, 08:20 AM
Wow Bobcat, of all the things you have ever posted, most of which I don't agree with, this has to be the most offensive.

Why does it bother you what someone else's sexual preferences are?I think that Bobcat holds the view that the most worthy in society are god f(e)aring folk, where the man and woman is married in a church and sex is for the sole purpose of procreation and must only be done in the missionary position. Anyone who does not meet this standard is unworthy and destined for hell - and consequently would not make a good party leader.

Banksie
24-09-2014, 08:20 AM
eZ,
Dont know what you think about this but beauty and intelligence are not survival traits. Otherwise the world would consist of entirely beautiful and intelligent people by now. Sexuality is a survival trait however and there is only one way of obtaining an ongoing supply of critters for the planet. Sure, homosexual and lesbian people may very well make good parents, but only with goods and services produced from the usual and in some cases, overused, channels. Homosexuality must be selfdefeating on a long term basis if left to proliferate.
If it became compulsory through legislation there would be cause for some concern.:)

Maybe homosexuality is a survival trait. As a species which has grown so large in numbers decreasing reproduction makes sense.

Locust swarm behaviour is a result of external stimuli (increased tactile stimulation of their hind legs causes an increase in levels of serotonin which changes their behaviour). Who is to say our sexuality is not determined by some external stimuli we have yet to identify but is key to the survival of our species?

minimoke
24-09-2014, 08:29 AM
Bobcat

Do think its not acceptable to have gay people in Parliament then?
Bobcat is possibly partly right. Look at the contrast between labours pink triangle faction with nationals young nats faction. I'll bet the young nats did more to mobilise voters and financial contributors than the homos. on the left.

nextbigthing
24-09-2014, 08:43 AM
'At the end of the day' Robertson represents a minority and like it or not he's never going to win the majority of votes. Simple as that.

Labour needs to sacrifice some of the smaller issues such as the man ban type stuff and come to the centre. It may not be what they want but its really quite simple. Maintain the fringe man ban type policies as a minority opposition or focus on the big issues only such as affordable housing and low wages and have a chance at governing. Your choice Labour.

slimwin
24-09-2014, 08:43 AM
So when did we start accepting bigotry on this forum? Is pretty clear to most people where the mental health issues lie.

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 08:44 AM
Bobcat is possibly partly right. Look at the contrast between labours pink triangle faction with nationals young nats faction. I'll bet the young nats did more to mobilise voters and financial contributors than the homos. on the left.

So you do not approve of John Key regular attendance at the Auckland " Big Gay Out " event then???

nextbigthing
24-09-2014, 08:46 AM
I'll bet the young nats did more to mobilise voters and financial contributors than the homos. on the left.

Lol.

I appreciate Bobcat sharing his views even if they're not the same as mine. What's the point being on here if you're not going to pay attention to other people's views.

Minerbarejet
24-09-2014, 08:49 AM
Maybe homosexuality is a survival trait. As a species which has grown so large in numbers decreasing reproduction makes sense.

Locust swarm behaviour is a result of external stimuli (increased tactile stimulation of their hind legs causes an increase in levels of serotonin which changes their behaviour). Who is to say our sexuality is not determined by some external stimuli we have yet to identify but is key to the survival of our species?
Far too much stimulus going on, I agree, in all departments.:)

minimoke
24-09-2014, 08:51 AM
So when did we start accepting bigotry on this forum? Is pretty clear to most people where the mental health issues lie.the moment we accepted that people have the freedom to express honestly held views. If mental retardation was a disqualification then we would have one tenth of the views expressed given the nutty nature found in all posts everywhere

minimoke
24-09-2014, 08:55 AM
So you do not approve of John Key regular attendance at the Auckland " Big Gay Out " event then???why would I disapprove? And he certainly doesn't need my approval.

nextbigthing
24-09-2014, 08:59 AM
why would I disapprove? And he certainly doesn't need my approval.

I'm sure his advisor Bill Crosby-Texted him to say it was probably a good idea to go to pick up the Blue pink vote.

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 09:02 AM
why would I disapprove? And he certainly doesn't need my approval.

well you referred to the "homos on the left". I am just intrigued as to whether your disapproval extends only to " homos" who vote for the left. What about the "homos" in the National Party, as we have one National cabinet minister who is gay.?

minimoke
24-09-2014, 09:18 AM
well you referred to the "homos on the left". I am just intrigued as to whether your disapproval extends only to " homos" who vote for the left. What about the "homos" in the National Party, as we have one National cabinet minister who is gay.?
Um - where do I state my disapproval?

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 09:25 AM
Um - where do I state my disapproval?

well i am glad you don,t disapprove, John Key can keep attending the big gay out event and the National Cabinet minister can breathe a sigh of relief

minimoke
24-09-2014, 09:33 AM
well i am glad you don,t disapprove, John Key can keep attending the big gay out event and the National Cabinet minister can breathe a sigh of reliefas I mentioned earlier, these people don't need my approval. I am happy I have made you glad. Nothing like spreading a bit of cheer!

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 11:02 AM
Amongst all the euphoria of National victory I posted my thoughts on the proposal to hold a referendum on changing the flag in 2015. The cost of holding a referendum outside of a general election is $9 Million.

Some observations

Is there any any real desire to change the flag?

If John Key is running with this why didn't he include it in the 2014 general election or wait until 2017?

He was stridently critical of the citizens initiated referendum over asset sales as a " waste of 9 million of tax payers money"

Such criticism seems rather empty and hypocritical now

Is the driver of this a legacy/vanity promotion as part of his place in history?

Is he deliberately choosing 2015 because its so far away from the election?

Is this very un- Key like behaviour very risky? Older age groups and former members of our Armed Forces, including myself ,will not be in favour of any change.It could result in a very public defeat on an issue which he has nailed his colours to the mast on.

On a personal basis if he drives through a change of our nations flag I would consider returning my NZ Defence Force Medal

What are others opinions?

fungus pudding
24-09-2014, 11:12 AM
Amongst all the euphoria of National victory I posted my thoughts on the proposal to hold a referendum on changing the flag in 2015. The cost of holding a referendum outside of a general election is $9 Million.

Some observations

Is there any any real desire to change the flag?

If John Key is running with this why didn't he include it in the 2014 general election or wait until 2017?

He was stridently critical of the citizens initiated referendum over asset sales as a " waste of 9 million of tax payers money"

Such criticism seems rather empty and hypocritical now

Is the driver of this a legacy/vanity promotion as part of his place in history?

Is he deliberately choosing 2015 because its so far away from the election?

Is this very un- Key like behaviour very risky? Older age groups and former members of our Armed of Forces, including myself ,will not be in favour of any change.It could result in a very public defeat on an issue which he has nailed his colours to the mast on.

On a personal basis if he drives through a change of our nations flag I would consider returning my NZ Defence Force Medal

What are others opinions?

I'd go for Kyle Lockwood's design any-day.

The top design with the blue background. .

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=kyle+lockwood+flag&biw=1043&bih=484&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JAwiVLHyBpHs8AXoxoGABw&ved=0CDMQsAQ

slimwin
24-09-2014, 11:20 AM
I'd like to see the flag change.

pedro.nz
24-09-2014, 11:48 AM
I also like this design as for me it retains much of the current flags 'emotional ties' with the past but does remove the colonial link which is less relevant these days...

6282

fungus pudding
24-09-2014, 11:57 AM
I also like this design as for me it retains much of the current flags 'emotional ties' with the past but does remove the colonial link which is less relevant these days...

6282
So what's the difference from the link I posted above?


https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=kyle+lockwood+flag&biw=1043&bih=484&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=3BYiVOXjN9H_8QWzsILICw&ved=0CDMQsAQ

Bobcat.
24-09-2014, 12:00 PM
And apart from GR's sexual preferences (which are nobody's business than his and his partners - and absolutely irrelevant for this job)...

Yep - I figured my earlier post would be a red flag to some PC bulls.

BP, we have been socially conditioned over the past few decades by some very insidious and subtle lobbying to believe that a person's sexual preferences are a private matter and irrelevant to a person's character - even when it comes to leadership. We have been fed a lie. A person's sexual preferences are in fact an important indicator of how noble, honourable or otherwise t'is a person's character.

Consider the following sexual preferences along a continuum from slightly depraved to very depraved, and then (putting your PC-conditioning aside if you can) state which ones if openly practised by a leadership candidate, you would consider relevant, and why. Remember to bear in mind that our nation's children (including your own) look to their community leaders (teachers, parents, boy scout masters, and yes, also politicians) as role models, people to emulate, and so a candidate's moral integrity is a lot more than merely a private matter:

1. Being unchaste (i.e. sex prior to being married) - i.e. robbing one's future husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
2. Having multiple partners (i.e. unfaithfulness) - i.e. if one can be unfaithful in his or her most intimate relationship, it's a small step to be unfaithful also in leadership.
3. Sadomasochistic bondage - role confusion and a perversion of the pleasure/pain principle
4. Adultery (i.e. breaking the sacred bond of faithfulness within marriage) - i.e. robbing one's husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
5. Polygamy
6. Same sex relationships (i.e. breaking God's laws w.r.t. heterosexual union - established for our good and to His glory)
7. Same-sex marriage (i.e. disrespecting and violating God's ordained institution of marriage - established for our good and to His glory)
8. Incest
9. Paedophilia
10. Bestiality.

Each of the above dishonours the body and infects the soul - they vary only in degree.

Where do you objectors draw the line as to what's to be overlooked when voting for leadership, and on what basis? Your gut feeling? This is a decision too important to be determined by our subjective and fickle feelings. It shapes our nation. Just as there are physical laws, which if we try to break them, they will break us; so too are there moral laws which if we ignore them (or worse shake our fist at them!) it is we (our families, our society, our future) that are broken. They exist for our good. There are not arbitrary - they are God-given and we'd be foolish to ignore them...especially when judging the character of those who claim to be sufficiently qualified to lead this nation and shape our future (and I don't mean just economically).

"Let us be moral. Let us contemplate existence" - Dickens
"Men's faults do seldom to themselves appear" - Shakespeare
"If honour calls, where'er she points the way, the sons of honour follow and obey" - Charles Churchill
"Let us do what honour demands" - Rachine

BC

Bobcat.
24-09-2014, 12:10 PM
I think that Bobcat holds the view that the most worthy in society are god f(e)aring folk, where the man and woman is married in a church and sex is for the sole purpose of procreation and must only be done in the missionary position. Anyone who does not meet this standard is unworthy and destined for hell - and consequently would not make a good party leader.

Well MM, if that's what you think about what I think, then you'd be wrong. You've put up a strawman just to chop me down. Sex is primarily for a husband and wife to enjoy - it bonds us with our soul mate in a very intimate, profound way. It's not by chance, or an accident of evolution over millions of years, that we are able to find pleasure in sex. It is a gift from God, best reserved for the marriage bed. And no, enjoying sex with your spouse other than in the missionary position will not send you to hell. What a preposterous concept -you'd have to be joking, yes?

BlackPeter
24-09-2014, 02:10 PM
Yep - I figured my earlier post would be a red flag to some PC bulls.

BP, we have been socially conditioned over the past few decades by some very insidious and subtle lobbying to believe that a person's sexual preferences are a private matter and irrelevant to a person's character - even when it comes to leadership. We have been fed a lie. A person's sexual preferences are in fact an important indicator of how noble, honourable or otherwise t'is a person's character.

Consider the following sexual preferences along a continuum from slightly depraved to very depraved, and then (putting your PC-conditioning aside if you can) state which ones if openly practised by a leadership candidate, you would consider relevant, and why. Remember to bear in mind that our nation's children (including your own) look to their community leaders (teachers, parents, boy scout masters, and yes, also politicians) as role models, people to emulate, and so a candidate's moral integrity is a lot more than merely a private matter:

1. Being unchaste (i.e. sex prior to being married) - i.e. robbing one's future husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
2. Having multiple partners (i.e. unfaithfulness) - i.e. if one can be unfaithful in his or her most intimate relationship, it's a small step to be unfaithful also in leadership.
3. Sadomasochistic bondage - role confusion and a perversion of the pleasure/pain principle
4. Adultery (i.e. breaking the sacred bond of faithfulness within marriage) - i.e. robbing one's husband or wife of what is rightfully theirs.
5. Polygamy
6. Same sex relationships (i.e. breaking God's laws w.r.t. heterosexual union - established for our good and to His glory)
7. Same-sex marriage (i.e. disrespecting and violating God's ordained institution of marriage - established for our good and to His glory)
8. Incest
9. Paedophilia
10. Bestiality.

Each of the above dishonours the body and infects the soul - they vary only in degree.

Where do you objectors draw the line as to what's to be overlooked when voting for leadership, and on what basis? Your gut feeling? This is a decision too important to be determined by our subjective and fickle feelings. It shapes our nation. Just as there are physical laws, which if we try to break them, they will break us; so too are there moral laws which if we ignore them (or worse shake our fist at them!) it is we (our families, our society, our future) that are broken. They exist for our good. There are not arbitrary - they are God-given and we'd be foolish to ignore them...especially when judging the character of those who claim to be sufficiently qualified to lead this nation and shape our future (and I don't mean just economically).

"Let us be moral. Let us contemplate existence" - Dickens
"Men's faults do seldom to themselves appear" - Shakespeare
"If honour calls, where'er she points the way, the sons of honour follow and obey" - Charles Churchill
"Let us do what honour demands" - Rachine

BC

Look BobCat, I must say I am disappointed. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Didn't thought that your religious delusion goes that far. And hey - I notice that you seem to be an expert on sexuell practises - where did you train?

I certainly would be more afraid of somebody with your ideas in a leadership position, than of anybody who might have a different sexual preference than I (or you).

The answer to your list above is quite easy. I wouldn't see anything which happens between consenting adults as my (and frankly speaking your) business, unless obviously you are one of the consenting adults. LOL.

Obviously #9 involves minors - illegal (and rightly so) - obviously not the right thing you want a leader to practise.

Not sure about your item #10? I think the law used this expression previously for homosexuality - if that's what you mean, than it is equal to 6 and / or 7?

Poor Jesus - he tried to bring such a fantastic message of love to the people. And now just look what people like you made out it. Shame again.

minimoke
24-09-2014, 02:14 PM
Well MM, if that's what you think about what I think, then you'd be wrong. You've put up a strawman just to chop me down. Sex is primarily for a husband and wife to enjoy - it bonds us with our soul mate in a very intimate, profound way. It's not by chance, or an accident of evolution over millions of years, that we are able to find pleasure in sex. It is a gift from God, best reserved for the marriage bed. And no, enjoying sex with your spouse other than in the missionary position will not send you to hell. What a preposterous concept -you'd have to be joking, yes?
So I got it mostly right then. I take it that any orifice is also fine on the kitchen table provided the couple are man and wife?

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 02:15 PM
So what's the difference from the link I posted above?


https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=kyle+lockwood+flag&biw=1043&bih=484&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=3BYiVOXjN9H_8QWzsILICw&ved=0CDMQsAQ

I note that so far none of my fellow posters have commented on the cost of the referendum. Yet I recall some very fervent views on the cost of the asset sales referendum. Seems rather hypocritical to me. In my opinion referenda should only be held at General elections

Minerbarejet
24-09-2014, 02:22 PM
So I got it mostly right then. I take it that any orifice is also fine on the kitchen table provided the couple are man and wife?
Not during dinner, --Puhleeze!!:blush:

minimoke
24-09-2014, 02:38 PM
I note that so far none of my fellow posters have commented on the cost of the referendum. Yet I recall some very fervent views on the cost of the asset sales referendum. Seems rather hypocritical to me. In my opinion referenda should only be held at General electionsill back you. I think it a total nonsense to raise such an issue a day after the election. I can only assume it is a smoke screen - but for what? Total hypocrisy on keys part - or perhaps a nudge towards the conservatives who had referendums as their non negotiable coalition chip.

fungus pudding
24-09-2014, 02:41 PM
Not during dinner, --Puhleeze!!:blush:

It would liven up those boring as hell mastercook programs.

elZorro
24-09-2014, 03:26 PM
It would liven up those boring as hell mastercook programs.

Now we've got a thread topic! Right with you there FP. I have to sit through those, or do something else, when those are finished it'll be a program on cupcakes.

Sgt Pepper, yes I quite agree about the waste of money, John's had years to organise a referendum, but must have thought it might polarise the voting. Next time anyone moans about the costs of Labour's policies, we can bring up this waste of taxpayer's cash that JK is happy to spend. It's probably about the same amount as the combined total of the expected income tax from the nation's farmers for 2014-2015.

Sgt Pepper
24-09-2014, 03:32 PM
Now we've got a thread topic! Right with you there FP. I have to sit through those, or do something else, when those are finished it'll be a program on cupcakes.

Sgt Pepper, yes I quite agree about the waste of money, John's had years to organise a referendum, but must have thought it might polarise the voting. Next time anyone moans about the costs of Labour's policies, we can bring up this waste of taxpayer's cash that JK is happy to spend. It's probably about the same amount as the combined total of the expected income tax from the nation's farmers for 2014-2015.

thanks EZ

Yep a deafening silence from most of the others, would have of been howls of outrage if Labour had done that, but, as usual a rather selective indignation prevails, whatever John the Duplicitious does is wonderful. Yawn

In the meantime

Dairy prices collapsing
Christchurch rebuild stagnating

Fran Sullivans analysis in the Herald this morning, very interesting and did not exactly hold back on what she thought of John Key shortcomings and lack of engagement with the truly important issues

Minerbarejet
24-09-2014, 03:50 PM
It would liven up those boring as hell mastercook programs. What do new kitchen tables cost these days?:)

fungus pudding
24-09-2014, 03:58 PM
Now we've got a thread topic! Right with you there FP. I have to sit through those, or do something else, when those are finished it'll be a program on cupcakes.

Sgt Pepper, yes I quite agree about the waste of money, John's had years to organise a referendum, but must have thought it might polarise the voting. Next time anyone moans about the costs of Labour's policies, we can bring up this waste of taxpayer's cash that JK is happy to spend. It's probably about the same amount as the combined total of the expected income tax from the nation's farmers for 2014-2015.

Good heavens eZ. I'm surprised you voted for National if you feel that way. Key had well signalled his intention to hold this referendum when National was returned. You had your chance to vote Labour -- ahh well....never mind.

minimoke
24-09-2014, 04:39 PM
Good heavens eZ. I'm surprised you voted for National if you feel that way. Key had well signalled his intention to hold this referendum when National was returned. You had your chance to vote Labour -- ahh well....never mind.but we know how seriously he takes referendums.67% of referendum respondents did not want asset sales and where did that get them? 53% of the electorate in the 2013 electiond did not give key a mandate to sell - but he did

Does the current flag not work well? John Key said he would change the crimes act yet 87.4% of respondents wanted a change when asked about smacking. As we know that got the population no where.despite them thinking it was a law they did not want.

We wondered what the smoke screen key was putting down over the past few days. Perhaps it had something to do with solid enegy failure to keep keys promise with respect to the pike river mine

elZorro
24-09-2014, 05:40 PM
but we know how seriously he takes referendums.67% of referendum respondents did not want asset sales and where did that get them? 53% of the electorate in the 2013 electiond did not give key a mandate to sell - but he did

Does the current flag not work well? John Key said he would change the crimes act yet 87.4% of respondents wanted a change when asked about smacking. As we know that got the population no where.despite them thinking it was a law they did not want.

We wondered what the smoke screen key was putting down over the past few days. Perhaps it had something to do with solid enegy failure to keep keys promise with respect to the pike river mine

Probably, MM. I was hoping that Labour would bring out a policy, just before the election, that they would definitely go into the mine and bring the comrades out if they could. They got close, it was a bit muted and lost in everything else that was going on. That would be a far better use of a few million dollars than a referendum.

Govt policy settings led to the Pike River disaster. Govt funds should be spent helping to restore some balance there. That's what a Helen Clark govt would have done. See the difference? You feel the difference.

minimoke
24-09-2014, 05:57 PM
Govt policy settings led to the Pike River disaster. Govt funds should be spent helping to restore some balance there. That's what a Helen Clark govt would have done. See the difference? You feel the difference.
Just so we dont end up to one eyed it was in 2005 that Peter Withall took over as mine manager and was responsible for mine development. In 2007 there was the PRC IPO.
Going back to 2005 Comrade Helen won the election and we had a Labour led government with support from NZ First and waste of space United Future.

National took over in 2008 by which time some $190m had been spent on development and the mine was tracking towards the unfortunate shaft collapse in Feb 2009 - less than 2 months after National took power.

nextbigthing
24-09-2014, 06:00 PM
Can we please not do the Pike river thing here sweetie, not in front of the kids. Please.

pedro.nz
24-09-2014, 06:15 PM
So what's the difference from the link I posted above?


https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=kyle+lockwood+flag&biw=1043&bih=484&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=3BYiVOXjN9H_8QWzsILICw&ved=0CDMQsAQ

No difference FP - I was just agreeing with your choice as I also like this design (but I can see that my statement could be read differently)

jonu
24-09-2014, 06:23 PM
Probably, MM. I was hoping that Labour would bring out a policy, just before the election, that they would definitely go into the mine and bring the comrades out if they could. They got close, it was a bit muted and lost in everything else that was going on. That would be a far better use of a few million dollars than a referendum.

Govt policy settings led to the Pike River disaster. Govt funds should be spent helping to restore some balance there. That's what a Helen Clark govt would have done. See the difference? You feel the difference.

Helen Clark personally signed off on the Urewera raids El Z. I don't think there is much of a halo to polish there.

elZorro
24-09-2014, 06:37 PM
Just so we dont end up to one eyed it was in 2005 that Peter Withall took over as mine manager and was responsible for mine development. In 2007 there was the PRC IPO.
Going back to 2005 Comrade Helen won the election and we had a Labour led government with support from NZ First and waste of space United Future.

National took over in 2008 by which time some $190m had been spent on development and the mine was tracking towards the unfortunate shaft collapse in Feb 2009 - less than 2 months after National took power.

Minimoke, as long as we are talking about it, you should get your facts absolutely correct. I usually check before I say anything. In this case, Wikipedia confirms that the correct person is Peter Whittall, and 2 months after starting as CEO, was when the disaster struck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_River_Mine_disaster

But it was well into National's term, November 2010. So they'd have had time to adjust the staffing of mines regulators up, if they'd had a mind to. I agree that Labour seemed to also oversee an initial drop in the staffing for supervision of mine safety in NZ. It was also a cost-saving commercial decision by Pike River to not buy the very best gas monitoring equipment, to use in a known gassy coal mine.

elZorro
24-09-2014, 06:38 PM
Helen Clark personally signed off on the Urewera raids El Z. I don't think there is much of a halo to polish there.

If they were such nice guys, why all the guns without permits, and what were they doing with Molotov cocktails?

fungus pudding
24-09-2014, 06:50 PM
No difference FP - I was just agreeing with your choice as I also like this design (but I can see that my statement could be read differently)

Ah - we agree to agree. Congratulations on excellent taste. It is good and I'd be surprised if that didn't get a high approval rating in a referendum. Sure makes the current one look tired. http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/attachment.php?attachmentid=6282&d=1411519620

nextbigthing
24-09-2014, 07:04 PM
I agree that Labour seemed to also oversee an initial drop in the staffing for supervision of mine safety in NZ.

Then it's a bit rough blaming National isn't it?

Isn't that the exact opposite of what Labour supposedly stand for? Yet they did it? Geez.

slimwin
24-09-2014, 07:10 PM
but we know how seriously he takes referendums.67% of referendum respondents did not want asset sales and where did that get them? 53% of the electorate in the 2013 electiond did not give key a mandate to sell - but he did


That was a citizen initiated referendum. His would be a govt one.

minimoke
24-09-2014, 07:19 PM
Minimoke, as long as we are talking about it, you should get your facts absolutely correct. I usually check before I say anything. In this case, Wikipedia confirms that the correct person is Peter Whittall, and 2 months after starting as CEO, was when the disaster struck.
Depends on your definition of disaster but PRC was one from start to finish. However I agree with NBT and PRC should rate as no 11 on Bobcats list of things to keep away from the children on this thread. (I'm still wondering what delights they teach him in bible class)

NB more than happy to take the discussion to the PRC thread but you'll have to do better than citing Wiki and I'd suggest you bone up on Peters career where you will indeed find he was responsible for on-site construction, mine development, recruitment of the new operations workforce and capital raisings during a Labour led government.

And to keep on topic Labour was in government in 1987 and won that years election – the same year a coalfield was allowed in a national park. It was after Helen Clark took over in 2002 that we saw a reduction in the Department of Labours Mine Inspectorate, loosing 7 people between 2002 and 2007 and 2 people after that. 2004 had a Labour Minister of Conservation (take that Greenies) allowing the site access agreement. Pike River was a dog by 2008 as was the mining inspectorate. Hard to blame National for that

minimoke
24-09-2014, 08:46 PM
Hi Bobcat.

It saddens myself to learn of your ban.
Your efforts are for the benefit of many and surprisingly creates angst by a minority upon this forum which resultingly creates disappointment for myself and I imagine many others that you are unable to contribute for a period.
I do hope some show self restraint from attacks upon yourself in your welcome return.
Regards Karlos:)
Wow a ban on a share trader forum. That's got to rate at no 8 on a list of things god frowns about. He's on a fast track to the pits of Damnation.

elZorro
24-09-2014, 08:49 PM
Depends on your definition of disaster but PRC was one from start to finish. However I agree with NBT and PRC should rate as no 11 on Bobcats list of things to keep away from the children on this thread. (I'm still wondering what delights they teach him in bible class)

NB more than happy to take the discussion to the PRC thread but you'll have to do better than citing Wiki and I'd suggest you bone up on Peters career where you will indeed find he was responsible for on-site construction, mine development, recruitment of the new operations workforce and capital raisings during a Labour led government.

And to keep on topic Labour was in government in 1987 and won that years election – the same year a coalfield was allowed in a national park. It was after Helen Clark took over in 2002 that we saw a reduction in the Department of Labours Mine Inspectorate, loosing 7 people between 2002 and 2007 and 2 people after that. 2004 had a Labour Minister of Conservation (take that Greenies) allowing the site access agreement. Pike River was a dog by 2008 as was the mining inspectorate. Hard to blame National for that

Maybe a Labour government did pull back on staffing for the mine inspectorate, but I bet the safety rules were still in place. Shareholders implored PRC to get moving to meet targets, and I think management cut a few corners trying to get there. Some experienced miners left the site beforehand, they were too worried about the risks to stay. Certainly it wasn't all National's fault that safety rules weren't enforced enough on their watch. But the govt certainly sat on their hands afterwards, it wasn't what you'd have seen from Labour.

elZorro
25-09-2014, 06:33 AM
UNICEF on child poverty in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-child-poverty-billion-dollar-problem-unicef-6091613

minimoke
25-09-2014, 06:54 AM
Maybe a Labour government did pull back on staffing for the mine inspectorate, but I bet the safety rules were still in place. Shareholders implored PRC to get moving to meet targets, and I think management cut a few corners trying to get there. Some experienced miners left the site beforehand, they were too worried about the risks to stay. Certainly it wasn't all National's fault that safety rules weren't enforced enough on their watch. euww children, close your eyes!


But the govt certainly sat on their hands afterwards, it wasn't what you'd have seen from Labour.Hmm, we had the airforcce clearing wreckage, a Royal Commission of Inquiry, devolution of OSH and establishment of Worksafe, a total overhaul of our safety legislation (Copying Australias Model Act), new mining regulations, provided a $10m re-entry fund for what is essentially a little mine, a continuation of the ACC system which saw workers compensated within the legislative entitlements. Now was there anything else? Contrast with the unions (the jelly backbone of Labour) who were eerily silent during the whole establishment phase of Pike despite the setbacks. What we would have seen from Labour is them "doing everything reasonably possible to recover the bodies" - note the cop out word "reasonable". I suspect we would have seen just as much success as National is getting.

nextbigthing
25-09-2014, 06:57 AM
Maybe a Labour government did pull back on staffing for the mine inspectorate, but I bet the safety rules were still in place. Shareholders implored PRC to get moving to meet targets, and I think management cut a few corners trying to get there. Some experienced miners left the site beforehand, they were too worried about the risks to stay. Certainly it wasn't all National's fault that safety rules weren't enforced enough on their watch. But the govt certainly sat on their hands afterwards, it wasn't what you'd have seen from Labour.

el Z take the blinkers off. You're claiming, 'you wouldn't see this from Labour' yet it was Labour that oversaw it!
That's just supporting Labour for the sake of it which earns no respect.
It's OK to admit if the party you support does something stupid. I agree Nationals flag changing is a waste of money. Fortunately the consequences are far less severe.

minimoke
25-09-2014, 07:00 AM
UNICEF on child poverty in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-child-poverty-billion-dollar-problem-unicef-6091613
Step one. neuter adults who shouldn't breed
Step two deal to parents who have bred without the ability to care for theri children (see step one)
Step 3 Deal to parent who put their own wants and addictions ahead of the needs of the child (see step one
Step 4 incarcertate parents who see KFC and Coke as economic replacements for nutritious food (along with step one)
Step 4 Stop the cycle (see step one)

Banksie
25-09-2014, 07:15 AM
Step one. neuter adults who shouldn't breed
Step two deal to parents who have bred without the ability to care for theri children (see step one)
Step 3 Deal to parent who put their own wants and addictions ahead of the needs of the child (see step one
Step 4 incarcertate parents who see KFC and Coke as economic replacements for nutritious food (along with step one)
Step 4 Stop the cycle (see step one)

Do you honestly believe this is a solution MM, or are you just being provocative?

blackcap
25-09-2014, 07:37 AM
Do you honestly believe this is a solution MM, or are you just being provocative?

I agree with MM on this one to an extent. There is no poverty in this country, more a poverty of spirit that has been allowed to grow with the welfare culture we have. People do not have pride in themselves and their whanau anymore. If parents put their own wants and addictions ahead of their kids, that to me is a form of child abuse and as such the parents should be held accountable for neglecting their children. If parents feed their kids KFC and coke on a regular basis, that is also child abuse and neglect and the parents should be held accountable. If parents want to breed without being able to provide for their kids then that also is irresponsible (lack of forward thinking) and that should too be tackled. But I know I know, there are people in our society who just do not have the means to be able to have the foresight to see what the consequenses of their actions (ie have more children) will have. How then do we equip them with said means, that is the challenge and that needs to be solved. But I do not know how you achieve that. Throwing more money at the problem will not make it go away.

minimoke
25-09-2014, 07:58 AM
Do you honestly believe this is a solution MM, or are you just being provocative?no, not the whole solution. Our comrades in China have a "one child" policy.why can't we draw on their experience. As an alternative would you like to see Lisa kuka breeding? I certainly don't!

westerly
25-09-2014, 09:54 AM
Step one. neuter adults who shouldn't breed
Step two deal to parents who have bred without the ability to care for theri children (see step one)
Step 3 Deal to parent who put their own wants and addictions ahead of the needs of the child (see step one
Step 4 incarcertate parents who see KFC and Coke as economic replacements for nutritious food (along with step one)
Step 4 Stop the cycle (see step one)

You myust be a direct decendant of Hitler ?

Step 4 Shareholders do very well from the continual and misleading promotion of these 2 products

westerly

artemis
25-09-2014, 10:01 AM
I agree with MM on this one to an extent. There is no poverty in this country, more a poverty of spirit that has been allowed to grow with the welfare culture we have. People do not have pride in themselves and their whanau anymore. If parents put their own wants and addictions ahead of their kids, that to me is a form of child abuse and as such the parents should be held accountable for neglecting their children. If parents feed their kids KFC and coke on a regular basis, that is also child abuse and neglect and the parents should be held accountable. If parents want to breed without being able to provide for their kids then that also is irresponsible (lack of forward thinking) and that should too be tackled. But I know I know, there are people in our society who just do not have the means to be able to have the foresight to see what the consequenses of their actions (ie have more children) will have. How then do we equip them with said means, that is the challenge and that needs to be solved. But I do not know how you achieve that. Throwing more money at the problem will not make it go away.

Also, despite 'child poverty' apparently being one of the top election issues, there seems a disconnect between the various party statements and what people see when they look around. Lindsay Mitchell had a useful take on the stats a couple of days ago (link below) where she presents the numbers broken down by low income and deprivation.Very different from the raw (and relative) income numbers.


http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/metiria-climbs-back-on-and-ups-ante.html

elZorro
25-09-2014, 10:48 AM
Also, despite 'child poverty' apparently being one of the top election issues, there seems a disconnect between the various party statements and what people see when they look around. Lindsay Mitchell had a useful take on the stats a couple of days ago (link below) where she presents the numbers broken down by low income and deprivation.Very different from the raw (and relative) income numbers.


http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/metiria-climbs-back-on-and-ups-ante.html

Lindsay Mitchell is an artist, and also someone who believes the welfare state is indefensible. If the cost to rent a small three bedroom home in Auckland was similar to that paid in much of USA or Australia, and our supermarket and energy costs were lower, maybe people would be able to get by more easily. But that is not the case. Basic living needs eat up most of any welfare payments, which are designed for a holding pattern at best. Even minimum wages are below a living standard, considering the average costs to get to work in the first place.

So either landlords cut rents, housing becomes more affordable, the costs on fuel and energy are dropped, and supermarkets trim back harder on suppliers, or we start exporting higher value goods in bigger numbers, and pay decent minimum wages. Now go looking for the parties that had real policies to do that. Labour and the Greens.

Okebw
25-09-2014, 10:53 AM
You myust be a direct decendant of Hitler ?



Eugenics is a fair bit older than Nazi Germany. It was an American that theorised it about a hundred years before Hitler was born if I remember correctly. Though its been practiced even before then

RGR367
25-09-2014, 10:57 AM
UNICEF on child poverty in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-child-poverty-billion-dollar-problem-unicef-6091613

That "Child Poverty" term again. Are kids under 15 looking for jobs now? For God's sake, it's the FAMILY THAT IS POOR that is poor and not the child. Is it being renamed now just like "global warning" is now just "climate change"? No wonder we can never find a solution, the problem or the terminology just keeps on changing.

minimoke
25-09-2014, 11:00 AM
You myust be a direct decendant of Hitler ? I invoke Godwin law!


Step 4 Shareholders do very well from the continual and misleading promotion of these 2 products

westerly
I guess shareholders are really benefitting from a tax on the poor and stupid. And I presume they sleep well at night knowing this ethical position

Sgt Pepper
25-09-2014, 11:05 AM
Step one. neuter adults who shouldn't breed
Step two deal to parents who have bred without the ability to care for theri children (see step one)
Step 3 Deal to parent who put their own wants and addictions ahead of the needs of the child (see step one
Step 4 incarcertate parents who see KFC and Coke as economic replacements for nutritious food (along with step one)
Step 4 Stop the cycle (see step one)

MM
step 5: ban supermarkets from selling alcohol
step 6: place 30% tax on sugar drinks
step 7: put sinking lid on pokie machines
step 8: ask for government action on steps 5,6,and 7
step 9: bang your head against brick wall as you realise National has NO INTENTION of delivering on any of these
step 10: business as usual, spend millions of dollars on really important things like:

a) changing the flag ( $10 million)
b) Americas cup ($36 million
c) subsidising Rio Tinto ($ 35 million)

Sgt Pepper
25-09-2014, 11:12 AM
I see the substance of the Maori Party and United confidence and supply agreement with the National Government has been released

Both parties are CONFIDENT that John Key will SUPPLY them with a Cabinet post and associated Salary.

Apparently the protracted negotiations between United Future, the Maori Party and John Key went on for several seconds before an agreement was reached

fungus pudding
25-09-2014, 11:27 AM
MM
step 5: ban supermarkets from selling alcohol
step 6: place 30% tax on sugar drinks
step 7: put sinking lid on pokie machines


You could go and live in Brunei or Dubai f that's what you want.

artemis
25-09-2014, 11:44 AM
Lindsay Mitchell is an artist, and also someone who believes the welfare state is indefensible. If the cost to rent a small three bedroom home in Auckland was similar to that paid in much of USA or Australia, and our supermarket and energy costs were lower, maybe people would be able to get by more easily. But that is not the case. Basic living needs eat up most of any welfare payments, which are designed for a holding pattern at best. Even minimum wages are below a living standard, considering the average costs to get to work in the first place.

So either landlords cut rents, housing becomes more affordable, the costs on fuel and energy are dropped, and supermarkets trim back harder on suppliers, or we start exporting higher value goods in bigger numbers, and pay decent minimum wages. Now go looking for the parties that had real policies to do that. Labour and the Greens.

Got facts? Or research?

nextbigthing
25-09-2014, 11:50 AM
Cunny is apparently being counseled to stand down. Will be interesting to see if he is still leader by the end of the day. I guess they need to slowly deflate his ego without popping it which could be dangerous and take out some people.

minimoke
25-09-2014, 11:58 AM
MM
step 5: ban supermarkets from selling alcohol
step 6: place 30% tax on sugar drinks
step 7: put sinking lid on pokie machines
step 8: ask for government action on steps 5,6,and 7
step 9: bang your head against brick wall as you realise National has NO INTENTION of delivering on any of these
step 10: business as usual, spend millions of dollars on really important things like:

a) changing the flag ( $10 million)
b) Americas cup ($36 million
c) subsidising Rio Tinto ($ 35 million)my steps try to deal with those not well equipped to breed. Your steps impact every person - even the sensible, so I can't see you getting much traction

Vaygor1
25-09-2014, 12:08 PM
UNICEF on child poverty in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-child-poverty-billion-dollar-problem-unicef-6091613

If you want to see real child poverty, come to Laos, Cambodia, or North East Thailand for a year or two.
Most kiwis haven't got a clue what real child poverty is... relatively speaking.

As for the 260,000 figure. Who's doing the counting and what's their criteria? UNICEF and the main opposition parties have everything to gain by trumping up these figures which, as the election has shown, all helps in destroying their credibility.

Does 'child' include babies and teenagers? Not in my books, and if so how are the poverty-baby numbers and the non-parttime-working-school-attending-poverty-teenage numbers being collected?
In all NZ there are 480,000 children aged from 5 to 12 inclusive. So more than 1/2 of all NZ children live in poverty? Get real.

So long as UNICEF and the Labour/Greens carry on skewing the stats to these extremes my donations, advocacy, and vote will remain elsewhere.

Banksie
25-09-2014, 12:12 PM
I invoke Godwin law!

Well played :t_up: