PDA

View Full Version : Elections



bradc
15-09-2005, 03:20 AM
OK, who are you voting for and why? No personal attacks or anything in this thread please, I'm sure there will be some of you who get really emotional about this.

I'm voting for National because of their tax cuts and various other right wing views

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 03:38 AM
Whats the point if you cant make personal attacks??? lol

I am not voting National. What will suffer as a result of the tax cuts? the money has to come somewhere. I would rather not the government borrow when they dont have to. Tax isn't killing me so why worry? i am more concerned with fuel prices.

Unemployment is low, which is good for us with jobs. It means that we are reasonably secure and wages/salaries are good. In the past the magic number for National is 10% unemployed. you nead AT LEAST this to drive wages down. great if you own a big business, but crap if you work for somone.

Those are my main things really, the rest I don't really care that much about. Our economy is good at the moment, so as far as I am concerned the current government can keep going.

mpau009
15-09-2005, 03:47 AM
Electorate vote = national (john key) Party vote = ACT

I like national, but 90% of the popular issues raised by them this election have been ACT issues for years, and i don't trust national not to back out, or dilute their ideas once in power, or to stay in power. I find ACT to be consistent in message, and really like the idea of rewarding initiative, and personal responsibility and accountability.

I'm 20, and a student. This is my first election, and i'm amped. I'm absolutely sick of driving with the hand brake on (ooh bad VR4 metaphor/pan), ...because so many drop outs and moaners feel like they're entitled to tell me what to think, and where my money should be spent.

As much as i want to see Labour out, i just want to take out some insurance that national will follow through.

(p.s final leaders debate tonight 7:30 on TV3)

KiwiTT
15-09-2005, 04:18 AM
I am not voting Labour. I think the pendulum has swung too much to the left. And the Government needs a bit of a slap to correct their path.

While not neccessary big problems, symptoms like "sex-change operations for grannies", "Hip-Hop Tours", "Twilight Golf Courses", "Prisoners Suing Goverment", are some examples of spending controls being removed too far.

bradc
15-09-2005, 04:30 AM
I think Richard is on the right track there, and Labour are doing a terrible job in law enforcement and police, I think the 'thank you very much' ad being run be national is right on the money.

While the tax cuts may cost the country lots, they aren't as pointless as the no interest on student loans crap, that is a bad bribe at best.

jaimz
15-09-2005, 04:42 AM
I've already voted (going on holiday on Saturday) and voted Labour + Labour

To be honest, the student loan thing was quite a big carrot for me. Together my wife and I still have over $30k worth of student loan, and while after most elections things just keep on trucking same as they ever did, I have to admit the prospect of 'immediately' saving $70 a week quite appealing.

It almost pays for my petrol!! :thumbsup:

Of course, the whole thing may have been a scam... in which case the joke's on me I guess. Still... worth a punt though.

GroundControl
15-09-2005, 04:50 AM
I agree with Kenneth pretty much, however I strongly disagree with Labour's student loan bribe (possibly partly because I've just finished paying off a $27,000 student loan so won't benefit from it at all, but mostly because it's a huge incentive for students to borrow the maximum amount possible and pay it back at the minimum rate, and they will...)

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 05:03 AM
3 vs 3 so far!

Manuals vs Autos too /Hmmm


Manual: Happy with what you have, its the best you can get for now

Auto: Just not happy with current performance and desire a change for more control

:leer: :joker:

GroundControl
15-09-2005, 05:13 AM
/STP

bradc
15-09-2005, 05:17 AM
kenneth - I have so much to say about that, but it is all bad ;)

Sam, I feel for you, paying off all that money, and now you find out you didn't need to pay it back so soon. I think it will be abused by students too.

I wonder how many will borrow $30k, put it into a bank or term deposit, and make heaps of money. Stupid labour.

KiwiTT
15-09-2005, 05:19 AM
I nearly bought that Ken. ;)

If you desire a manual, you want more control over your choices. The Left, make these choices for you, therefore they are more of an automatic. The Right, on the other will give you more choices, therefore they must be a manual.

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 05:31 AM
Whats the deal with the student loan thing? I haven't really been keeping up with that sort of stuff.

If the policy is designed to keep our talent IN NEW ZEALAND, then the money is of no relevance is it? on one side, you dont get the interest, on the other its almost forcing graduates overseas to pay off the debt (or to ditch it without paying)

its easy to look at the short term financial cost/benefit of a policy (such as tax cuts and student loan stuff) but you have to look further to see what the ripple effect is.

GroundControl
15-09-2005, 05:41 AM
The deal is that there is no interest as long as you stay in NZ.

Currently the fact that you have interest on the loan once you have finished studying keeps people from borrowing as much as they possibly can (rather than as much as they need) since they know they will have to pay it back (with interest) once they stop studying.

Without that, students will borrow the maximum possible, and then repay it at the minimum rate, because there is absolutely no reason not to, and its not costing THEM any more.

And everyone pays for it, because the money we're lending students to sit on and waste away on whatever they feel like has to come from somewhere...

It feels very much like a huge bribe to get the student vote for labour. Yes, it would be more of an incentive for people to stay in NZ, but it has an enormous cost.

KiwiTT
15-09-2005, 05:51 AM
What is wrong with these.

1. To cut personal tax so 85 per cent of New Zealanders pay 19 per cent tax or less.

2. Make interest on student loans and pre-school childcare tax deductible from April 1, 2006.

3. Introduce an Resource Management amendment bill before the end of 2005 and pass it before July 2006.

4. Introduce nationwide maths and English standards in 2006.

5. Require all Treaty of Waitangi claims to be lodged by the end of 2006 and settled by the end of 2010.

6. Introduce and pass legislation to abolish parole for all violent and repeat offenders by July 1, 2006.

7. Overhaul the NCEA before final exams in 2006.

8. Introduce more thorough medical checks for those on invalid and sickness benefits by April 1, 2006.

9. Increase investment in frontline education, health and police services in the 2006 Budget and cut wasteful programmes.

10. Remove all references to the "Principles of the Treaty" from acts of parliament by April 1, 2008 and abolish Maori seats before the next election.

mpau009
15-09-2005, 05:59 AM
It feels very much like a huge bribe to get the student vote for labour. Yes, it would be more of an incentive for people to stay in NZ, but it has an enormous cost.


As most know, last night the figures from treasury came out at 3x (yes that 300%) of what labour said upto a cost of 900+million a year in 2008, this is because they based their calculations on a 70% uptake of student loans, where as treasury say more like 95%

I am a double degree (Ba/Bcom) student at auckland, i currently pay all my fees, so no student loan. If Labour is elected, the first thing i will do, is enrole for next years course, and get a loan of around 9 grand for that year, + all the allowances i can get my hands on, then i'll leave my 10 grand in the bank and get paid 7odd% meaning that the taxpayer will be paying me 10,000 extra to earn interest of $700, then i'll pay it off in a lump sum.

... And so will everyone else in my position... :drummer:

we're students, we're not thick, :scholar: and if people can't realise that this is a major economic disaster then you need to look harder. It is expected to add around 5 BILLION dollars of personal debt by 2020, and where will that money come from??? 7% on 5 billion sounds good to me!!!

Also why pay it back at anything other than the bare minimum required? its like an interest free loan for 15 years after as well - beats house mortgage rates.

In the mean time, i don't care who wins, National = more dollars from my part time jobs. Labour = 10grand a year of other peoples money to play with and invest.

It makes sense, its a pure short sighted bribe, don't be SUCKED IN - VOTE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN LABOUR

I am absolutely sure of this, but i love to argue if anyone wants to...

(p.s I'm a Politics Major (Ba), and a Small Business Major(BCom)) hence the interest

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 06:02 AM
All parties have good and bad policies...


but say you vote national in, and all those policies are adhered to. but in the meantime they also make sure unemployment rises and you loose your job. you enter the unemployment pool of say 14% and cant get another job because you are too qualified vs younger and less experianced workers.

10 great policies, but you get screwed over. you loose your VR-4 and you are buggered.

Thats a bad case scenario, but its definatly a possibilty.


Each to their own though, I definatly agree with some of Nationals policies.

KiwiTT
15-09-2005, 06:09 AM
I also agree with Some of Labour's Policies too!

Just I think this government needs a slap.

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 06:11 AM
Ok, say you got your student loan.

You pay it off as slow as possible, say in 15 years.

to get that intrest free for 15 years, you have to stay in NZ. for those 15 years you are paying tax and generating income, which you put back into the economy. if you were overseas, it would be a dead loss.

dont forget that if you are a NZ resident (or whatever) the government subsidises your education quite heavily for starters! so as soon as you bugger off, its a dead loss to them.

Some people will abuse the system. some may make money. but guess what? if you make some money off the BANK then pay the loan back in a lump sum or something, what has the government really lost?

I don't see where the loss is to be honest.

What if the ripple effect is that we keep some of our top grads, and as a result someone starts a business that grows to the point where it turns over a billion dollars a year. you get tax, you get jobs you get heaps of stuff.

so what if they are still paying their student loan off at the minimum rate???

bradc
15-09-2005, 06:15 AM
a meeting between me and helen /pan

I'm with KiwiTT on this one, most of nationals policies are very good, I love the working for the dole scheme in particular. Their reduction in health spending is the only thing I don't like.

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 06:30 AM
a meeting between me and helen /pan

I'm with KiwiTT on this one, most of nationals policies are very good, I love the working for the dole scheme in particular. Their reduction in health spending is the only thing I don't like.


Ahhh, that makes LOTS of sense actually... there is your CHEAP labour to force salaries/wages down ;)

AND they give tax cuts but reduce health funding.

So, you get another 3k a year. you dont loose your job, but you dont get any pay increases like you would have if the job market was better. so you loose a 5k rise.

Thats ok, because with taxes you are still just out ahead.

but then you/your partner gets pregnant, and has complications. User pays now though, so you have to pay more for your health care. say once a fortnight you have to go to the doctors, at $100 a visit. over 6 months, thats around $1200.

then because we are user pays, ACC is gone. great! but you drive over someones foot. as a professional athlete you have just destroyed their career and they sue you for compensation. 5million. but your liability cover for your insurance is only 1million... Oh crap.

What did you gain?

Treaty claims are gone though! woohoo that would make you feel much better.
Oh, and most children are better at maths... which means all our farmers can count their heard 20% faster and work out a standard deviation for stock losses.

Thanks national!

mpau009
15-09-2005, 06:43 AM
Ok, say you got your student loan.

You pay it off as slow as possible, say in 15 years.

to get that intrest free for 15 years, you have to stay in NZ. for those 15 years you are paying tax and generating income, which you put back into the economy. if you were overseas, it would be a dead loss.

dont forget that if you are a NZ resident (or whatever) the government subsidises your education quite heavily for starters! so as soon as you bugger off, its a dead loss to them.

Some people will abuse the system. some may make money. but guess what? if you make some money off the BANK then pay the loan back in a lump sum or something, what has the government really lost?

I don't see where the loss is to be honest.

What if the ripple effect is that we keep some of our top grads, and as a result someone starts a business that grows to the point where it turns over a billion dollars a year. you get tax, you get jobs you get heaps of stuff.

so what if they are still paying their student loan off at the minimum rate???


Some really good points, but at the moment only around 60something odd percent of students borrow, and a lot of those don't borrow to the maximum. If you've got a brain, you'll borrow, even if you don't need it, and there's nothing to stop me paying it all off in a lump, and up and leaving - but thats a side issue.

If you lose the incentive for students to save and look after their money - it could make the debt situation worse.

Also, the money has to come from somewhere - so all that money - 900mil by 2008 will have to come from tax payers /Hmmm , for me to use as i wish, within the conditions you set down above its still a good deal. It will tie up litterally billions of extra taxpayers money, and allow it to be managed by students, for our exclusive gain.

I am one of the 30-35% (conservatively) who don't have a loan, so I already have the money for my fees, but its no longer worth spending it on them, when i can save it for my personal benefit until much later - at the taxpayers expense. THAT 10 GRAND WILL COME DIRECTLY FROM THE GOVERNMENT (not otherwise going to be borrowed), WHO BY DEFAULT LOSE THAT MONEY, AND ANY INTEREST OR INVESTMENT FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME. on top of that, the money we borrow devalues at the rate of inflation - upto 3% a year, so when the government finally gets its money back its worth less than when they lent it.

The problem of students leaving seems pretty minor in my eyes, if you look at a near doubling in the rate that students draw down loans??? also its still only marginally better for students to stay, so many will still choose to leave.

Also a new point to the issue - it removes the onus for students to think about their courses. If it makes little difference to you in your working life, people might tend to do less valuable courses (in future earnings sense) like languages and so on, which might never generate enough to pay off the loans they require - instead of making a careful concious choice to head towards a high income profession, and make sure they use their loans wisely.


Rebuttals welcome???

Kenneth
15-09-2005, 06:52 AM
How badly did we do when education was FREE? was in my parents time.

Government is better off with at least some of it back.

I dont think it will be as bad as you think. I still think the benefits outwheigh the cost.

gotta go now, will be interested to see this thread when I next get to a PC ;)

mpau009
15-09-2005, 07:09 AM
How badly did we do when education was FREE? was in my parents time.

Government is better off with at least some of it back.

I dont think it will be as bad as you think. I still think the benefits outwheigh the cost.

gotta go now, will be interested to see this thread when I next get to a PC ;)

Free education.... /Hmmm the idea behind removing that, was to enourage competition between academic institutes. The idea behind this, was that it will force universities and such to operate more efficently, and operate like a business. While i like the idea that education should be equally available to everyone, the reality is that the costs need to be kept in check. So from the country's point of view, it gets more bang for its education buck. In terms of teaching quality and bureaucratic processes.

Also as i mentioned earlier, the idea was that students would best select degrees that are valuable to the jobs market - so courses would target specific needs as set down by the economy, as opposed to the government trying to decide how many accountants or lawyers we might need.

Free education would be awesome, in that the smartest people would be selected for degrees - which might not be happeneing at the moment.

The final main critique of the free tertiary system, is that if i am going to benefit personally from this education, by (hopefully) getting a high paying position. sure you'll get some of that back through tax, but unless all the students go on to make a sh!tload, it'll take along time, before you see any benefit to you for financing my education.

Still, arguements for free education do have a reasonable economic grounding - and i would prefer it to the interest free loans, which is a scatter gun approach.

These are just my ideas, and most of my lecturers could probably rip them apart, but they're not so important to this election.

BTW, loving this thread, i'm sick of arguing with marxist and communist students :rolleyes4

bradc
15-09-2005, 10:07 AM
The work for the dole scheme is going to provide cheap labour for things like grafiti removal, rubbish removal, etc. It isn't going to take away from most peoples jobs. I can not see a single reason why people should get money from the government for doing nothing, especially for the length of time some people are on benefits.

I think that the requirements for DPB and sickness benefits should be tightened, and there should be a scheme where people are forced to do at least some work, regardless of their position.

I also doubt that the reduction in health spending is going really affect things, health insurance is cheap, as an example my health insurance is $7 a week and is covered for basically everything I could possibly think of.

The National party policies about treaty claims are something I quite like, I think that if there is a Labour and Green coalition there will be millions spent on treaty claims, all of which could be spent on health care ;) Their policies on maori seats and being equal to everyone are very good too.

jaimz
15-09-2005, 08:41 PM
Free education would be awesome, in that the smartest people would be selected for degrees - which might not be happeneing at the moment.



Now, I don't know much about politics, but surely that's a recipe for disaster. Rich get richer, poor get poorer etc...
Isn't everyone entitled to a higher education if they want one..?

(This isn't an attack on your comment as such, just a curious observation :thumbsup: )

mpau009
15-09-2005, 11:09 PM
Now, I don't know much about politics, but surely that's a recipe for disaster. Rich get richer, poor get poorer etc...
Isn't everyone entitled to a higher education if they want one..?

(This isn't an attack on your comment as such, just a curious observation :thumbsup: )

You could say that, but surely we want the best people for the job? if you're naturally better at being a lawyer, the idea would be for you to be able to be a lawyer, at a cost of fees + 7%. This would mean that you would have to be committed to it, and take that into account. Thats why i think the loans scheme, which lends to everyone is the best compromise of opportunity for everyone, and quality education.

Sure some rich kids might exploit their wealth, but if they're in an environment of naturally talented people, it would show, you've still got to get the grades.

the main thing i was trying to get at, was that if everything was free, it would encourage all kinds of people to do degrees for all sorts of reasons, and the costs would balloon out, with less return for the country. To combat that, the govt. would have to only fund so many of each profession a year, say 100 doctors, and while those doctors would be the best 100, we might need only 50 - or 5000?

To get the right amount of professionals that we need in the economy at the moment, study should in my opinion be as much a financial decision, as it is one of interest?

Having said that, Jaimz, if you've got a student loan, the absolute best thing you could do for you right now is vote labour (so are most of my uni mates), but for everyone else, its an issue for the future, they have to consider the cost, and the increased number of people that might take out a loan.

Kenneth
16-09-2005, 01:48 AM
I like the LAST line of your post mpau009.

the word might sticks out like a sore thumb to me. everything is a big might. I might die tomorrow, in which case I will definatly change my vote to national! lol

Everyone has emotional attachments to specific policies. The student loan one is interesting because people that had it hard tend to want others to have to work for what they get.

Those that used the SL system WANT to have no interest. The thing is there are quite a few who worked their backsides off taking out as much as they could on their loan but are left with bugger all.

My sister did a design degree. Worked huge hours on her projects, had a part time job and worked 2 jobs in the holidays when she wasn't so tied down with her assignments (she couldn't afford to have someone else build her designs, so had to do them herself).
In the last year, through lack of direction and poor management (no lecutrers and they didn't give good assesment guidelines) she failed one paper (most of the students did) and therfore didn't have a degree.
Left with $30,000+ in SL to pay off she still worked 2 jobs just to keep ahead of interest and get rid of the debt. After nearly a year, she had to quit the part time job (the 2nd job) because her health was suffering as was her relationship with her long time BF (now her husband).

After seeing that, I don't believe anyone should feel obliged to go through it. Student loans are a double edged sword, they make getting an education feel easy, then kill you after.

Future... How better to invest in the future than with education? then you go throw it away because they all bugger off overseas to pay off their SL.

Personally, I don't care about the SL issue... how big is it really in the scheme of things? how big are tax cuts?
How about job security? how about a decent wage and decent working conditions?

I want to have a decent job with a decent salary and enjoy my workplace because I am valued more.

Isn't the whole BASIC principle this (forget the policies, they are there to emotionally attach you to the party)

National: in it for businesses. The wealthy and smart can make plenty of money with little restriction. Society will pay (through charities etc) for the poor and underpriviledged, so the government has no need to provide because it is an unnessecary expense

Labour: in it for the working man. job security and good wages. businesses take a hit through increased costs of employing people and keeping good working conditions. the low get taken more benefits from the government which costs those that work.


I don't claim to be a political person, to be honest I am a bit apathetic about it because its all crap IMO. You can never get everyone happy, so why get uptight when its your turn?
My vote is a vote of how confident I am of the current government. If I think it needs change, ill vote against. otherwise ill vote for.

I am happy with the current state of the things that are important to me. I have a job with good prospects should I loose it. the economy is good, which benefits all of NZ. sure some people loose through the high dollar value, but do you see them homless or on the unemployed bench?


No one has brought up an argument that has made me even think that they have a good point. I agree there are policies that I like from national (ie the treaty claims) however I think overall they will do the country worse.

The arguments that have been brought up seem to be emotionally based on money and its personal relationship to them. Why not be generous and think about those that can benefit? are they the ones who need it? Is the policy a carrot that is never really realised?

dont forget, policies are policies... not promises.

I don't think I have anything more to say now, which is impressive! ;)

KiwiTT
16-09-2005, 02:28 AM
I have never been really a socialist nor a capitalist and am somewhere in-between. To use National's current term, "main-stream".

I arrived back in NZ in 1987 and was earning $21,000 a year and taxed at 21% and I started my IT career as a "Computer Specialist", I worked really hard to learn all I could about IT and in particular Networking/Servers and Security. When the top tax rate was dropped from 66% to 33% @ 38,000, I said to myself that wont effect me, when will I earn that much. However, in about 3-4 years I was earning that rate, so it did hit me. Through no fault of my own, I found myself penalised for increasing my earning potential. I got over that and continued on my merry way up the ladder in income, then by 1999 I was earning a significant amount. In 2000 Labour then introduced 39% for those earning over $60,000, I found myself penalised again. Still because I had directed all my payrise increases to the mortgage, I found myself mortgage free. This is probably my real reward for increasing my skills.

Now in 2005, with me now earning closer to National's new threshold of $100,000 before the 39% kicks in, I find myself looking at my future. As I believe everyone is responsible for their own independence, I like National's mind-set of giving people more choice by giving them more money back into their pocket. I will be saving my taxcut, because as you say (Ken), the future is not assured in anyway, but I do not see why I should ask the Government for a hand, when we are all responsible for our own outcomes in life.

mpau009
16-09-2005, 03:38 AM
I love that people are taking an interest. and you're right, student loans don't matter much in the scheme of things, but its the indecision that you mention that scares me, if treasury (who i would have to trust over Labours guys&gals) revise the figures to be out by over 600 million within three years. I just can't feel comfortable that Labour, and Cullen can be trusted to provide a clear picture of what it takes to deliver on their promises.

Your also spot on about my preferences, my family situation does weigh heavily on my thinking (why do you think i don't have a loan...). but i don't think that influences the validity of the arguments. The reason i love/hate the student loans thing so much, is because its shoved in my face everyday at Auckland, i come back to find my legnum burried under labour pamphlets (some prick wrote labour-labour-labour in chalk on my tyres /pan), and unionist lecturers who make the deal sound like its amazing - it just frustrates me that no one seems to take them to task over it.

As for tax,,, ooh that might be too much for this thread:rolleyes4 . If you saw the debate last night, Brash got caught out in having to acknowledge that it would require 3.5 billion extra to maintain services.... i have some huge issues with them as well.

I am really enjoying hearing what people from other areas of society are thinking, and how they interpret the same news reports as i see.

2 things i can say for sure:1) i will vote, and 2) i will get blind drunk on saturday /yes
(yay politics)

Pete M
16-09-2005, 06:01 AM
I watched the last leaders' debate on TV3 last night. I thought that the best bit was right at the end when John Campbell thanked them. He turned to HC and she looked like she was awaiting the fawning 'Yes, Prime Minister' farewell. John Campbell just called her the 'leader of the Labour Party'. Eeek! She looked like he'd thrown a bucket of cold water on her. Only for a second, and she recovered, but she seems to rather like being 'Miss Bossy Boots'. Time for a spanking, I think. I rather like National's policies, too, and that's what they've tried to concentrate on, while Labour has just tried to throw in distractions.
So, National, two ticks for me.

mpau009
16-09-2005, 06:59 AM
Only for a second, and she recovered, but she seems to rather like being 'Miss Bossy Boots'. Time for a spanking, So, National, two ticks for me.

You've got to give Helen credit though, she dominates those debates - she sets the agenda, ducks difficult questions, and gets the upper hand on the host, she always gets the last word, and forces Don to answer everything. Don seems tame in comparison, while he might have the better arguements a lot of the time IMO, she makes him look confused and misleading, He gets burried in detail and technicalities. She's a hell of a role model for debating. I can't wait for the latest set of polls to see what people thought.

bradc
16-09-2005, 09:09 AM
Helen is definately very very dominant, and that is a big part of what I don't like about her, and the various policies they have are things I disagree with.

KiwiTT, you are a classic example of someone who has worked hard and IMHO shouldn't be giving half of the money to the government. If you had a National/Act level of tax at the top end of your pay, you would have a heap of extra money.

Kenneth, I hear what you're saying, and I personally don't think the country is doing that well, the current health, police, education systems are all in a complete state of disaster, and I'm sure that National would be able to improve (maybe not fix) these 3 crucial areas.

mpau009
16-09-2005, 09:42 AM
Helen is definately very very dominant, and that is a big part of what I don't like about her, and the various policies they have are things I disagree with.

Thats for sure, a lot of people react that way (me included), ...but a week later they can't remember a damn thing anyone else said. All it would take is a series of short, definitive answers delivered with an ounce of passion to shut her down, instead all you see is 20 minutes of Brash bumbling his way through detailed economic answers.

Is anyone willing to try to convince me to switch my party vote to national - aside from the risk that ACT won't make the 5%? i got to meet John Key the other day, and asked him exactly that, and i'v been flopping from one to the other since then. I do think there is a decent chance of intelligent voters in Epsom electing Rodney, given that the national candidate is so high on the list... and I like the watchdog role that ACT has played in past, and agree with a fair bit of their social policy. Is it just a lost cause?

bradc
16-09-2005, 10:49 AM
I think voting for act is probably a waste of time because I doubt act will get into parliment at all. If I was in the epsom electorate, I would probably vote for Hyde in Epsom, but National as my party vote.

eeknz
16-09-2005, 01:26 PM
If you look at the current policies being thrown about, they are largley Act policy from way back. NZ probably wasn't ready to hear them at the time, but the Nats grabbed them, and Labour watered them down to be more green friendly as a reaction. Reacting and bribery is about all they have.
Aside from tax cuts etc, has nobody noticed evil Helens social policy? How about winning the last election on the eve of dodgy corn and fraudulent paintings where other people got blamed for it all. How about the motorcade? Everytime anything bad happens she buggers off and lets Cullen do damage control so she is rarely seen ever being responsible for anything or defending anything, let alone appologising. She cannot be trusted in my opinion. It's one thing to be anti nuke, but pissing the americans off on purpose isn't good foreign policy.
I'll be going 2 ticks national (in case that wasn't obvious) as Peter Dunn was fairly disappointing in this last term so blue is the only way for a change. While it would be nice to see Act still in there playing watchdog, they may not get Epsom or 5% so a vote for act might be a vote for labour.
That my conservative right wing 2 cents.

bradc
16-09-2005, 08:20 PM
I think that voting for Peter Dunn, or NZ First may be a complete waste of time because you don't know who they will go into coalition with. I think the only parties to vote for are Labour, National or ACT. If anyone here even contemplates voting for the greens, I would be very very surprised, who wants to pay tons more in fuel, and have worse roads with buses and cyclists everywhere?

KiwiTT
16-09-2005, 09:42 PM
Today is the day. We let the voters decide.

I still like a mix of parties in parliament.

It makes it interesting and stops one party having all the say. In causes consensus politics.

Plus it represents a diverse population which NZ is. Long live MMP.

KiwiTT
16-09-2005, 09:53 PM
Why you should vote ?

NZ Herald - 17.09.05

Because democracy is about doing, not just talking. An activist once said, "Democracy is not something you believe in, it's what you do. You participate."

Because it focuses your mind: Sometimes you only get clear who you support when you're faced with the terrible finality of the ballot paper.

Because it forces us to compromise: No politician matches your views perfectly. Like politicians, we need to prioritise what matters most to us.

Because you get to join the rest of the country: Look around you in the polling booth. Everyone is feeling conflicted, excited, wondering, just like you. Despite our differences, it is the time we are one.

Because we should celebrate: We choose our leaders. Many countries don't. Rejoice.

Because we have a responsibility: People have fought and died for the right to vote. Don't forget them.

Because we want to be heard: The people you support need to feel your presence at their shoulder; those you don't, need to know you're watching.

Because we want to choose: It's simple - you want a say in Government, you have to do it.

Because it's good: Make a day of it. Breakfast, wander along to the local school and vote, then have a lunch which stretches well into the afternoon, then head to the nearest election party.

Because it's the basis of civil society: The definition of a citizen is civic and moral action. It is not possible to have a civil society without this.

Because everyone else is: You can bet that person you completely disagree with on politics is going to be voting today.

Because you are sensible: Democracy is a chorus of voices. The more voices, the more we can drown out the shrill sounds from the extremes.

_simon_
17-09-2005, 12:29 PM
I'm amazed at the percentage of people who vote is so low. Watching the TV its 72.1% and that seems to be about it. Still got the special votes to go but it will be about 25% of people who didn't vote!!! That's crazy, I just presumed it would be about 95% of people that voted.

bradc
17-09-2005, 01:15 PM
There are still ~220000 special votes to be counted, which is about another 10% or so. I'm still waiting for those to come in, but it really does look 50/50 at this stage.

NAUSED
17-09-2005, 01:22 PM
well there you have it, i wanted National to win but of course no matter what Labour will win.

KiwiTT
17-09-2005, 09:00 PM
The election result: I am disappointed for me, but pleased for New Zealand

Well done New Zealand. You are still a great country to live in.

bradc
18-09-2005, 12:23 AM
I'm hoping that once the special votes have been counted the greens will be less than 5%, and that the gap between Labour and National will have been closed a bit, that should make it very interesting.

It's still a good result though, I wonder how the coalition talks are going?

Kenneth
18-09-2005, 12:30 AM
Should be interesting....

good to see that manual triumphs (if only just) over auto :joker:

Have to wait till its all tallied up before knowing who will end up ahead, but eithier way neithier has a clear majority so its really irrelivant.

Going to be an interesting term really. unfortunatly probably going to be slow getting anything done unless there is a strong coilition.


And did I mention that manuals are better than autos? ;) lol

mpau009
18-09-2005, 01:20 AM
Oh Well at least my vote wasn't a waste, Rodney got the message through in Epsom, so now he gets a friend to play with, and John Key won my electorate by 12000 votes.

The Greens will be very interesting, but i can't see them slipping (much as i would love to see it), they always do fairly well in the special votes - but saying that, all the people i know who did vote early voted national...

I can see winston playing with this one for a few days, and i wouldn't put it past him to force a re-election.

Also it will be interesting to see how much traction the Maori party can get with national, given that labour will have to bend somewhat on their issues.

Standby for some decent policy re-alignments in the next few weeks...

bradc
18-09-2005, 01:37 AM
If National go with Act, United Future and NZ First, they have 61 seats (out of 122), and I don't think that it would be all that difficult to imagine that happening. If that does happen, then I'm sure there will be another election.

eeknz
18-09-2005, 03:57 AM
If National go with Act, United Future and NZ First, they have 61 seats (out of 122), and I don't think that it would be all that difficult to imagine that happening. If that does happen, then I'm sure there will be another election.

Unfortunatley both NZF and UF said they would support the party with the most votes, which by a stupidly small margin is dictator helen. That leaves nationals only option Maori and Act, which won't be enough. Maori will not get the chance to back the Nats as they will do what the electorate tell them to, and the Maori electorate has always been left leaning.

Oz is looking better all the time.

bradc
18-09-2005, 07:49 AM
I think that both those parties are a little bit closer to National than Labour. If I was Don Brash I would get Winston, Rodney, and Peter Dunn all in the same room and say that none of them are leaving until they have all reached an agreement ;)

Peter Dunn could be head of the Families commision, Winston and Rodney could take a number of positions. I'm sure they would be happy with that, and they would all get much more out of it than what they would with Labour.

I doubt that Helen will give any partner any real power at all.

mpau009
18-09-2005, 09:24 AM
Unfortunatley both NZF and UF said they would support the party with the most votes, which by a stupidly small margin is dictator helen. That leaves nationals only option Maori and Act, which won't be enough. Maori will not get the chance to back the Nats as they will do what the electorate tell them to, and the Maori electorate has always been left leaning.

Oz is looking better all the time.

The thing i find interesting, is that Helen will know full well that Peters and Dunne can only force a re-election, not form a new government - i think that will give her a fair bit of power over them, in that they might suffer badly in a very close re-election, but ultimately it will be a game of poker as to who can get what. also, how many percent would it take before ACT, or other minors around 1.5% - 3% could get an extra member? i think its only a few percent, and if a re-election was required, many people who voted for minnows such as destiny or democracy, or libertarianz might be swayed...