If National wins ...

[BlackPeter]

We don't know how competent National will be with so many changes since they last governed.
We do know Labour are totally incompetent.
None of the minor parties are likely to gain enough to be a major influence in the next term.
So your only hope is to take a punt on National.

To be fair ... I am not aware that there is a limit on the measure of incompetence ... and while I agree that Labour is pretty incompetent in doing what they said they wanted to do ... they did so far ok-ish in dealing with the virus. I could imagine still more incompetent governments than the current bunch - ie. I recon we need to see what National comes up with before we try to assess who is the least competent bunch.

[fungus pudding]

To be fair ... I am not aware that there is a limit on the measure of incompetence ... and while I agree that Labour is pretty incompetent in doing what they said they wanted to do ... they did so far ok-ish in dealing with the virus. I could imagine still more incompetent governments than the current bunch - ie. I recon we need to see what National comes up with before we try to assess who is the least competent bunch.

National do not have a Twyford, a Parker, a Williams, a Davis, Jackson and some of the others who are so forgettable I can't remember them! There is no chance they will be as hopeless.

[Blue Skies]

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.

Therefore I have no other option than to vote as I do, and I can't see that changing. 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.

You sound like a fun sort of a guy! Get invited out a lot?
You'd get on well with Ted Cruz.
Just joking, sounds a bit earnest.

[BlackPeter]

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.

Therefore I have no other option than to vote as I do, and I can't see that changing. 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.

You sound like a very one dimensional person ... is this really what you are?

Most people are multidimensional - and life certainly is.

Sure - most people stand on a certain place in the left - right spectrum, and I assume this is for most voters one of the factors influencing which party they vote for, but at least for me there are as well some other very important criteria to assess. Some examples would be:

How do the parties propose to protect the environment. No point in voting for a party which might support my selfish desire to maximise my capital if this results in a destruction of our planet, is it?

Are the people standing for the party decent, honorable people or do I know already that they are character-less liars? No point in voting for a liar who tells me what I want to hear, isn't it ... even if I like his (or her) story.

Are the people standing for election competent to do what they need to do in order to achieve the goals they promised?

Are the values of the parties compatible with my values (and this is a show stopper - I could not bring myself to ever vote for a party which supported (just an overseas example) e.g. a liar like Trump?

If I could choose I would pick a centre-right government which humanistic principles using a science based approach which really cares about the environment and the planet. It needs to be run by honest and decent people I can respect.

No party in NZ fits this bill ... which means I need to check every time which of the available choices comes closest to my requirements.

If this makes me a swing voter, then so be it ... without us democracy would not work because politicians would not have a need to perform.

While I realise that some voters would vote for any sheep as long as its wool is died in the right colour ... I don't think that this is the best approach to make democracy work.

[BlackPeter]

National do not have a Twyford, a Parker, a Williams, a Davis, Jackson and some of the others who are so forgettable I can't remember them! There is no chance they will be as hopeless.

Well, of the top of my head I can think of many questionable National candidates and staffers (many quite recent) - lets see: Andrew Falloon, Jake Bezzant, Michelle Boag, Judith Collins, Jamie-Lee Ross, Roger McClay - and I am sure that there are plenty more.

Lets face it - Nationals candidate selection is a shambles, and neither character not leadership skills seem to be relevant in the selection as long as Mr Goodfellow likes them for some reason.

While I agree with you that Labours record in picking decent and competent staff is not very impressive - I doubt National is standing in that regard on moral high ground.

Just another pick out of a bad bunch ...

[justakiwi]

I said I will consider them. No party is perfect. None of them. I will make my decision at election time.

A bit contradictory to your previous stance on the importance of vaccines.

[Getty]

Bridges has confirmed he is standing. So very little change to the polls if he succeeds.

"bugger the pollsters" as Jim Bolger famously said.

Which way will the pendulum swing this time?

[Getty]

"bugger the pollsters" as Jim Bolger famously said.

Which way will the pendulum swing this time?

Remember 'Ms 2%' as John Banks used to refer to Helen Clark, going on to become PM?

[Blue Skies]

Well, of the top of my head I can think of many questionable National candidates and staffers (many quite recent) - lets see: Andrew Falloon, Jake Bezzant, Michelle Boag, Judith Collins, Jamie-Lee Ross, Roger McClay - and I am sure that there are plenty more.

Lets face it - Nationals candidate selection is a shambles, and neither character not leadership skills seem to be relevant in the selection as long as Mr Goodfellow likes them for some reason.

While I agree with you that Labours record in picking decent and competent staff is not very impressive - I doubt National is standing in that regard on moral high ground.

Just another pick out of a bad bunch ...

Add Hamish Walker (leaking confidential patient info) & Jiang Yang (best known for training Chinese spies) to that list, plus current MP's Michael Woodhouse (the toilet seat creep) and Melissa Lee ( vindictive bully) & Harete Hipango ( using MP's taxpayer fund to buy big screen TV, & sofas, furniture for her parliamentary office, which instead went to her own home ).

[fungus pudding]

Well, of the top of my head I can think of many questionable National candidates and staffers (many quite recent) - lets see: Andrew Falloon, Jake Bezzant, Michelle Boag, Judith Collins, Jamie-Lee Ross, Roger McClay - and I am sure that there are plenty more.

Lets face it - Nationals candidate selection is a shambles, and neither character not leadership skills seem to be relevant in the selection as long as Mr Goodfellow likes them for some reason.

While I agree with you that Labours record in picking decent and competent staff is not very impressive - I doubt National is standing in that regard on moral high ground.

Just another pick out of a bad bunch ...

The large number of dead-beats at the same time is what distingishes the current Labour lot from all previous parties - Labour or National.