If National wins ...

[Blue Skies]

"As about exciting as the Taihape Public toilets." Pundits brutal assessment of Nats leader candidates.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/11/national-leadership-pundits-brutal-assessments-of-candidates-shock-at-judith-collins-attempt-to-destroy-simon-bridges.html

Described as "absolutely unproven" and "as about as exciting as the Taihape public toilets", Christopher Luxon still has a way to go to prove he could be a successful National leader, two political commentators say.

Ha, brutal quote from ex ACT staffer & right wing commentator Trish Sherson, on National's candidate selection under Peter Goodfellow & leadership crisis,

'the party really needs to have a good look at itself. The leader really is the cherry on top of this cake, and at the moment there is no icing and no cake."

[justakiwi]

As a "swinging voter" I 100% disagree with your analysis. I know exactly what my views and opinions are, and what I am personally looking for in a government. I vote for whichever party I believe will do the best job for NZ, and for me as an individual, at the time. As yet, National has never received my vote, but that does not mean they never will. When the next election comes around I will look at what all parties have to offer, and will base my decision on that.

I would rather be a responsible swinging voter than someone who blindly votes one party, simply because that's what they have always done (or what their parents always did).

I equate 'swinging voters' with people who are unsure as to what their views and opinions are and who are constantly vacillating on what they stand for and who they support. 'Swinging' is probably the right name for them, as it is word redolendent with free and easy people of questionable morals who can't decide what they support.

[Toulouse - Luzern]

I vote for competent govts.

Well, in comparison to what otherwise could be (only a few choices are offered).

and as logen ninefingers puts it:

"I vote for parties that believe in private property rights, individual freedoms, the maintenance of law and order, and the limiting of state intrusion in peoples lives.

"I cannot in good conscience vote for parties that believe in ever increasing socialism and state control & the undermining of the current system, as that eventually leads to revolution, anarchy, and the implementation of totalitarian regimes."

In my case and IMHO:

I believe in the rule of law, our Courts, and Appeal processes Justice and fairness.

Regardless of who I vote for:

All governments should respect private property rights.

We worked hard for what we have now.

Govt should not claim the Resource Management Act (RMA), or proposed changes to it, allows City Councils, eg Wellington City Council (WCC) and the Greater Wellington District Council (GRDC), to take property as Significant Natural Areas (SNA).

It does not.

And especially, without valid consultation, compensation to legal owners with title (at independent market rates) or a cadastral survey.

Willing buyer and willing seller are fundamental.

There is no explicit legal authority in the existing RMA to take land as SNA.

So the Govt proposes to change the RMA and councils pursue SNA.

Current SNA proposals and the WCC GWRC actions to take land as SNA without payment are inequitable and unfair.

Minorities are clearly being victimised and will suffer loss by the bullying Govt, WCC and GRC actions and tactics.

And the Draft District plan is a non statutory document without any legal authority and the proposed rules have no effect as yet.

Since 2017 the WCC SNA proposals have tormented those affected.

If the RMA and SNA changes are not opposed, then up to 1700 landowners in Wellington lose their property rights.

In our case 51% of our section.

In some cases up to 100%.

Imagine, if it was you affected, how would you react?

As things stand, there are no appeals eg to Courts if these RMA/SNA proposals are carried through.

There is no meaningful discussion with affected stakeholders, no discussion or scaling back of the % of property claimed.

Civil servants and politicians should be able to conclude, in the blink of an eye, that the current RMA/SNA proposals are unjust and reject them, if they have integrity.
How would they react if 51% of their land was taken without compensation on flimsy justifications?

With no appeal to any higher authority.

The RMA/SNA is in the Parliamentary select committee stages prior to a third reading.

An irony is that while the Govt is pushing for 3x3 housing, more buildings; the SNA in perpetuity prevents any use at all by title holders of land designated as SNA. Confusing and contradictory.

As one directly affected landowner puts it "all we can do of SNA becomes law is watch the trees grow".

I understand for most people this is a non issue. 250,000 Wellington ratepayers are not affected. Some of the 1700 who are and whose enjoyment and use of the land is compromised do object and strongly. We appear to have no rights of appeal under the current process.

Darroch Valuers, the WCC Council appointed valuers, assess loss of land value from SNA as up to 22% in the few cases they reviewed.

Significant.

What do you think?

[Getty]

"As about exciting as the Taihape Public toilets." Pundits brutal assessment of Nats leader candidates.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/11/national-leadership-pundits-brutal-assessments-of-candidates-shock-at-judith-collins-attempt-to-destroy-simon-bridges.html

Described as "absolutely unproven" and "as about as exciting as the Taihape public toilets", Christopher Luxon still has a way to go to prove he could be a successful National leader, two political commentators say.

IMO Mr Luxon has come from a background where people down the pyramid show you subservience.

Politics is not like that.

Someone from the other side, who you may regard as vastly intellectually inferior, and less accomplished, can give you a damn good whipping, and there is not much you can do about it.

Not everyone can handle that.

Parliament is not known as the bear pit for no reason.

Simon Bridges has been though that, and appears to want more, hence me picking him over some others.

National cant afford another Todd Muller debacle between now and the next election.

Mr Luxon needs more time to prove he is battle hardened to the political environment.

Maybe step up into next term.

[fungus pudding]

As a "swinging voter" I 100% disagree with your analysis. I know exactly what my views and opinions are, and what I am personally looking for in a government. I vote for whichever party I believe will do the best job for NZ, and for me as an individual, at the time. As yet, National has never received my vote, but that does not mean they never will. When the next election comes around I will look at what all parties have to offer, and will base my decision on that.

I would rather be a responsible swinging voter than someone who blindly votes one party, simply because that's what they have always done (or what their parents always did).

Good on you. That's sensible.

[FTG]

As a "swinging voter" I 100% disagree with your analysis. I know exactly what my views and opinions are, and what I am personally looking for in a government. I vote for whichever party I believe will do the best job for NZ, and for me as an individual, at the time. As yet, National has never received my vote, but that does not mean they never will. When the next election comes around I will look at what all parties have to offer, and will base my decision on that.

I would rather be a responsible swinging voter than someone who blindly votes one party, simply because that's what they have always done (or what their parents always did).

Have you ever voted for the Act Party Justakiwi ?
I may be wrong, but you don't strike me as someone who has or would.

If not, then with respect, you probably shouldn't call yourself a true "swinging voter", as there wouldn't really be a wide arch to your "swing"?

[dobby41]

They can't even run themselves (an easy job).

It's not like there are a lot of them to run.

[fungus pudding]

Sure there will be people who would vote for him because of those deeply conservative attitudes, Christian conservative parties can get around 5 -8% of the vote,
but National need to get close to 40% of the vote.

They do, but National, just like Labour have got their core voters who just tick the form regardless of policy. ('Cos my parents did'.) Then there are those who follow their local MP - so it's not just the leaders personal beliefs that determine elections.

[Panda-NZ-]

They do, but National, just like Labour have got their core voters who just tick the form regardless of policy. ('Cos my parents did'.) Then there are those who follow their local MP - so it's not just the leaders personal beliefs that determine elections.

Then you have the sheer cult of personality -- key, jacinda, winston.

[moka]

You assume that people vote for the party they want - I don't. I believe a large number of voters execise their vote to keep out the party they most dislike - or fear. I certainly do and I know I'm far from alone.

Unfortunately, there are too many men who do vote to keep out the party they dislike the most, and that is a problem, because they have a negative fear-based focus, instead of a positive vision of how they want New Zealand to be. I call it the stale pale male attitude, negative, based on fear, and focused on the past not the future.

Think of how much better New Zealand could be if these people had a positive future-focused vision of how NZ could be. Because we are all are part of NZ society. Many here are running businesses or employed in businesses. How do you contribute to society? The focus on these threads is how useless, incompetent the government is. All most people do is complain about how bad things are and few have a concept of to make NZ better.