NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 12791
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by UncleFB »

Tehui wrote:Interesting to read the reaction from some of the boardies about the intention to charge fees for the 14-day period re-entering NZ. I would have thought those on the Right would be supportive of it. I'm still trying to figure out whether your disagreement is due to the actual policy, or due to the team making the political decisions.
Yeah, it’s odd that righties are complaining about the lefties instituting a user pays system.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

UncleFB wrote:
Tehui wrote:Interesting to read the reaction from some of the boardies about the intention to charge fees for the 14-day period re-entering NZ. I would have thought those on the Right would be supportive of it. I'm still trying to figure out whether your disagreement is due to the actual policy, or due to the team making the political decisions.
Yeah, it’s odd that righties are complaining about the lefties instituting a user pays system.

It isn't a user pays system
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Actually should expand on that as it is an important point.

It is a user pays system while the tax payer pays for them, but not when the kiwis coming back are forced to.
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JB1981 »

I’m confused. What is your thinking about it being user pays when the user doesn’t pay and not user pays when they do? What am I missing?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

JB1981 wrote:I’m confused. What is your thinking about it being user pays when the user doesn’t pay and not user pays when they do? What am I missing?
I am willing to be swayed with a better argument.

User pays is based on the concept the beneficiary of something pays for it

While it is a requirement by the government for isolation for the reason that it helps the health of the general public, the beneficiary of it is the general public and the traveller (kiwis not stupid enough to leave after it started and have no choice) is the one forced into isolation

So it is user payers to the tax payer. Putting aside the point health care is supposed to be at no cost anyway.

The govt charging people switches it from user pays yo user gets benefit (the public) and some poor sap has to pay to stop them not getting ill.

As I say. Might be dumb logic
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

It's not user pays because almost no users pay. It's more like an arbitrary fee applied to a small group for political rather than rational reasons. It will bring in such a small amount of money relative to the cost that it not charging it would have no significant effect. It is 50% symbolic (to assuage the anger of the resentful non-travellers) and 50% designed to curb certain behaviour (e.g. outward travel).

It doesn't really matter much in the scheme of things though. And of course people unaffected by it think it's OK. :thumbup:
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Santa wrote:It's not user pays because almost no users pay. It's more like an arbitrary fee applied to a small group for political rather than rational reasons. It will bring in such a small amount of money relative to the cost that it not charging it would have no significant effect. It is 50% symbolic (to assuage the anger of the resentful non-travellers) and 50% designed to curb certain behaviour (e.g. outward travel).

It doesn't really matter much in the scheme of things though. And of course people unaffected by it think it's OK. :thumbup:
Agree with this.

What they have come up with is more political pressure than any thing else, given the few being charged.

Is a drop in the ocean given the cost and will probably cost more than it gets and is pointless.

But I think the dumb Labour idea was forced politically by the slightly stupider Nat idea.
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Dark wrote:
Santa wrote:It's not user pays because almost no users pay. It's more like an arbitrary fee applied to a small group for political rather than rational reasons. It will bring in such a small amount of money relative to the cost that it not charging it would have no significant effect. It is 50% symbolic (to assuage the anger of the resentful non-travellers) and 50% designed to curb certain behaviour (e.g. outward travel).

It doesn't really matter much in the scheme of things though. And of course people unaffected by it think it's OK. :thumbup:
Agree with this.

What they have come up with is more political pressure than any thing else, given the few being charged.

Is a drop in the ocean given the cost and will probably cost more than it gets and is pointless.

But I think the dumb Labour idea was forced politically by the slightly stupider Nat idea.
I didn't read the National policy. Did it have exceptions or was it a flat fee? If the latter that would be more rational than what we have but a much harder sell. That would be more user pays.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Santa wrote:
Dark wrote:
Santa wrote:It's not user pays because almost no users pay. It's more like an arbitrary fee applied to a small group for political rather than rational reasons. It will bring in such a small amount of money relative to the cost that it not charging it would have no significant effect. It is 50% symbolic (to assuage the anger of the resentful non-travellers) and 50% designed to curb certain behaviour (e.g. outward travel).

It doesn't really matter much in the scheme of things though. And of course people unaffected by it think it's OK. :thumbup:
Agree with this.

What they have come up with is more political pressure than any thing else, given the few being charged.

Is a drop in the ocean given the cost and will probably cost more than it gets and is pointless.

But I think the dumb Labour idea was forced politically by the slightly stupider Nat idea.
I didn't read the National policy. Did it have exceptions or was it a flat fee? If the latter that would be more rational than what we have but a much harder sell. That would be more user pays.
Flat I think. Everyone 3 grand from memory.

I would still argue it is dim and not user pays as the user is the public staying Covid free. And the traveller having to do something they have no choice, but to do, to get home to their citizenship country. it is their human right to do.
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Dark wrote:
Santa wrote:
Dark wrote:
Santa wrote:It's not user pays because almost no users pay. It's more like an arbitrary fee applied to a small group for political rather than rational reasons. It will bring in such a small amount of money relative to the cost that it not charging it would have no significant effect. It is 50% symbolic (to assuage the anger of the resentful non-travellers) and 50% designed to curb certain behaviour (e.g. outward travel).

It doesn't really matter much in the scheme of things though. And of course people unaffected by it think it's OK. :thumbup:
Agree with this.

What they have come up with is more political pressure than any thing else, given the few being charged.

Is a drop in the ocean given the cost and will probably cost more than it gets and is pointless.

But I think the dumb Labour idea was forced politically by the slightly stupider Nat idea.
I didn't read the National policy. Did it have exceptions or was it a flat fee? If the latter that would be more rational than what we have but a much harder sell. That would be more user pays.
Flat I think. Everyone 3 grand from memory.

I would still argue it is dim and not user pays as the user is the public staying Covid free. And the traveller having to do something they have no choice, but to do, to get home to their citizenship country. it is their human right to do.
Yes there would be clear problems with a flat fee too.
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 17664
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

Santa wrote:Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.
There would be loads of instances where a user pays charge covered costs incurred to a 3rd party though.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Santa wrote:Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.

The other thing they haven't probably thought of is if people suddenly have to pay for something then they are entitled to complain about any level of service isn't up to the standard of the money they are paying.

Which could get a bit complicated.

"My room serviced steak is a bit cold. I am paying 3k for this shit? Bring me another and monogrammed shit paper!"
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.
There would be loads of instances where a user pays charge covered costs incurred to a 3rd party though.
Possibly. Probably. I'm not sure. We're talking compulsory fees like passports, licencing, those kinds of things where there is no choice in provision and third parties tend not to do those kinds of things. Not discretionary services where there is choice (e.g choosing one health provider or another). I know that government entities are forbidden by law from charging more than cost. So the question is does a third party profit equal a cost or a profit by proxy. Mind you this government seems unconstrained by laws with the blessing of the people so...

As I say I'm likely wrong. And that last bit was a joke. Or was it? Or was it? Or was it?
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 17664
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.
There would be loads of instances where a user pays charge covered costs incurred to a 3rd party though.
Possibly. Probably. I'm not sure. We're talking compulsory fees like passports, licencing, those kinds of things where there is no choice in provision. Not discretionary services where there is choice
Sure, but as a comparison VTNZ is a privately owned for profit enterprise.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

The charges are the best balance under difficult circumstances. The National Party's main issue seems to be it's not bringing in enough money (never change, National). I think NZ as a whole has a duty to welcome all citizens home who wish to relocate permanently, and to make circumstance unconditional around that. That's why it's free.

People temporarily leaving for business and leisure can pay upon return. That seems sensible.

People arriving for a holiday and returning to their home can pay. That also seems sensible.

I would make the 90 days much longer, aligned with tax residency status. 183 days, or six months.
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.
There would be loads of instances where a user pays charge covered costs incurred to a 3rd party though.
Possibly. Probably. I'm not sure. We're t7alking compulsory fees like passports, licencing, those kinds of things where there is no choice in provision. Not discretionary services where there is choice
Sure, but as a comparison VTNZ is a privately owned for profit enterprise.
Sure but, and this is what I was trying to get at, it's not a monopoly. You can only get a passport from one entity and they control the fee which is compulsory. Unlike with VTNZ where you can get the same service from another place who competeanwith VTNZ on price. Thus the passport fee should only cover the cost and not make a profit because the profit effectively acts as an illegal tax.

I did a bunch if modelling on this for a regulator when I lived there and I seem to recall than even cross subsidised fees has to be treated carefully.
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Muttonbirds wrote:The charges are the best balance under difficult circumstances. The National Party's main issue seems to be it's not bringing in enough money (never change, National). I think NZ as a whole has a duty to welcome all citizens home who wish to relocate permanently, and to make circumstance unconditional around that. That's why it's free.

People temporarily leaving for business and leisure can pay upon return. That seems sensible.

People arriving for a holiday and returning to their home can pay. That also seems sensible.

I would make the 90 days much longer, aligned with tax residency status. 183 days, or six months.
Yes, yes we know you always agree with Jacinda.
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 17664
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:Actually I wonder if the fee amount is challengeable in some legal way. I seem to recall that compulsory government charges are only allowed to cover costs. They cannot make a profit as that amounts to a form of tax.

Now. Follow my logic. Since the government has decided to use profit making entities to provide a compulsory service then they are factoring a non-cost profit into the fee by proxy. Perhaps that is why they are charging less than they are being charged.

That's probably bollocks though.
There would be loads of instances where a user pays charge covered costs incurred to a 3rd party though.
Possibly. Probably. I'm not sure. We're t7alking compulsory fees like passports, licencing, those kinds of things where there is no choice in provision. Not discretionary services where there is choice
Sure, but as a comparison VTNZ is a privately owned for profit enterprise.
Sure but, and this is what I was trying to get at, it's not a monopoly. You can only get a passport from one entity and they control the fee which is compulsory. Unlike with VTNZ where you can get the same service from another place who competeanwith VTNZ on price. Thus the passport fee should only cover the cost and not make a profit because the profit effectively acts as an illegal tax.

I did a bunch if modelling on this for a regulator when I lived there and I seem to recall than even cross subsidised fees has to be treated carefully.
Vehicle and driver licensing charges are compulsory charges and set fees.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Santa wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:The charges are the best balance under difficult circumstances. The National Party's main issue seems to be it's not bringing in enough money (never change, National). I think NZ as a whole has a duty to welcome all citizens home who wish to relocate permanently, and to make circumstance unconditional around that. That's why it's free.

People temporarily leaving for business and leisure can pay upon return. That seems sensible.

People arriving for a holiday and returning to their home can pay. That also seems sensible.

I would make the 90 days much longer, aligned with tax residency status. 183 days, or six months.
Yes, yes we know you always agree with Jacinda.
She gets it right most of the time.
Santa
Posts: 10299
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Vehicle and driver licensing charges are compulsory charges and set fees.
Ok I'm not making myself clear. Let's call it a win to you. :thumbup:
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 17664
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Vehicle and driver licensing charges are compulsory charges and set fees.
Ok I'm not making myself clear. Let's call it a win to you. :thumbup:
In your f**king face.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Matthew Hooton, former RNZ political commenter and then National Party strategist (even both on one particular day in May) has 'resigned' after just 74 days in the job.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... ty-staffer

Amazing how many National Party MPs, and now strategists, suddenly want to spend more time with their family. :roll:
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 16180
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Tehui »

Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Vehicle and driver licensing charges are compulsory charges and set fees.
Ok I'm not making myself clear. Let's call it a win to you. :thumbup:
In your f**king face.
:lol:
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3479
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

Muttonbirds wrote:Matthew Hooton, former RNZ political commenter and then National Party strategist (even both on one particular day in May) has 'resigned' after just 74 days in the job.

Amazing how many National Party MPs, and now strategists, suddenly want to spend more time with their family. :roll:
Whaea Judy clearing out all the troublemakers. It really is a shame she wasn't installed as Leader after Bill the rorting trougher.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Santa wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:The charges are the best balance under difficult circumstances. The National Party's main issue seems to be it's not bringing in enough money (never change, National). I think NZ as a whole has a duty to welcome all citizens home who wish to relocate permanently, and to make circumstance unconditional around that. That's why it's free.

People temporarily leaving for business and leisure can pay upon return. That seems sensible.

People arriving for a holiday and returning to their home can pay. That also seems sensible.

I would make the 90 days much longer, aligned with tax residency status. 183 days, or six months.
Yes, yes we know you always agree with Jacinda.
Ah, but this version is after the Greens softened it a lot. Labour were more for charging like National.
User avatar
Monkey Magic
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Monkey Magic »

Enzedder wrote:
Santa wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:The charges are the best balance under difficult circumstances. The National Party's main issue seems to be it's not bringing in enough money (never change, National). I think NZ as a whole has a duty to welcome all citizens home who wish to relocate permanently, and to make circumstance unconditional around that. That's why it's free.

People temporarily leaving for business and leisure can pay upon return. That seems sensible.

People arriving for a holiday and returning to their home can pay. That also seems sensible.

I would make the 90 days much longer, aligned with tax residency status. 183 days, or six months.
Yes, yes we know you always agree with Jacinda.
Ah, but this version is after the Greens softened it a lot. Labour were more for charging like National.
What? Mmp works? Dies ZB know?

Its one of the reasons the current polling is a little disappointing, long term parliament needs influential smaller parties across the spectrum
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Agree. Despite all the bitchers and moaners about Winnie going with Labour, I have always argued that the voters wanted a split, watered down government as that was perfect for the times (minimalist really). Right now we need a Government that is strong, decisive and focused (no matter which colour) without minor parties wagging the dog.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Enzedder wrote:Agree. Despite all the bitchers and moaners about Winnie going with Labour, I have always argued that the voters wanted a split, watered down government as that was perfect for the times (minimalist really). Right now we need a Government that is strong, decisive and focused (no matter which colour) without minor parties wagging the dog.
On current polling you'll likely get what you want.

I'd love the meddling Greens to miss out, Labour to govern alone with a strong National/ACT opposition.

NZ First gone would also be a refreshing change.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20879
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

Enzedder wrote:Agree. Despite all the bitchers and moaners about Winnie going with Labour, I have always argued that the voters wanted a split, watered down government as that was perfect for the times (minimalist really). Right now we need a Government that is strong, decisive and focused (no matter which colour) without minor parties wagging the dog.
I suspect a large percentage of New Zealanders vote for who they think will do the least damage rather than the most good.
brat
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by brat »

booji boy wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Agree. Despite all the bitchers and moaners about Winnie going with Labour, I have always argued that the voters wanted a split, watered down government as that was perfect for the times (minimalist really). Right now we need a Government that is strong, decisive and focused (no matter which colour) without minor parties wagging the dog.
On current polling you'll likely get what you want.

I'd love the meddling Greens to miss out, Labour to govern alone with a strong National/ACT opposition.

NZ First gone would also be a refreshing change.
That’s part of the self fulfilling nature of these polls..there are some national supporters that will give their party vote to labour in the hope that the more ‘dangerous’ greens aren’t involved in the next election

For the vast majority of people there wouldn’t be a huge difference in their lives if national of labour get in.. it’s just that people love to argue the hypothetical left/right balance when in reality there isn’t much in it
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Agree. Despite all the bitchers and moaners about Winnie going with Labour, I have always argued that the voters wanted a split, watered down government as that was perfect for the times (minimalist really). Right now we need a Government that is strong, decisive and focused (no matter which colour) without minor parties wagging the dog.
I suspect a large percentage of New Zealanders vote for who they think will do the least damage rather than the most good.
I agree to an extent. I went Labour last time though as I had had enough of the poor bloody wage earners getting nothing and the companies were creaming it. I definitely had my hand out for them even though I was self-employed by then.

The large settlements for health, teachers, Police, Public Servants etc which were made without breaking the bank (and the increase in minimum wages and average wage) made me think that I had done the right thing.
brat
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by brat »

Enzedder wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Enzedder wrote:Agree. Despite all the bitchers and moaners about Winnie going with Labour, I have always argued that the voters wanted a split, watered down government as that was perfect for the times (minimalist really). Right now we need a Government that is strong, decisive and focused (no matter which colour) without minor parties wagging the dog.
I suspect a large percentage of New Zealanders vote for who they think will do the least damage rather than the most good.
I agree to an extent. I went Labour last time though as I had had enough of the poor bloody wage earners getting nothing and the companies were creaming it. I definitely had my hand out for them even though I was self-employed by then.

The large settlements for health, teachers, Police, Public Servants etc which were made without breaking the bank (and the increase in minimum wages and average wage) made me think that I had done the right thing.
So are you still going to vote labour this time?
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

I will never vote National again - and ACT is not on my landscape.

Winnie is spent and the Greens are nutter.

No-one left so labour wins my vote and I think in Ardern/Robertson they have the right philosophy for what is needed.
brat
Posts: 4409
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by brat »

Enzedder wrote:I will never vote National again - and ACT is not on my landscape.

Winnie is spent and the Greens are nutter.

No-one left so labour wins my vote and I think in Ardern/Robertson they have the right philosophy for what is needed.
Fair enough

You’re obviously an informed voter..it’s just a shame that many people vote on personality over policy

Many votes probably wouldn’t be able to name 3 policies for the party they vote for, and there are some good policies scattered over most parties, but a lot of people can’t be bothered to even do any research as they are already blinkered
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Hell yes - now you are talking. If I had my way, parties would be banned and MPs would have to work together to promote good policy.

I like one of Heinlein's ideas too - 75% votes to pass a bill - 33% to repeal one.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20879
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

brat wrote:
Enzedder wrote:I will never vote National again - and ACT is not on my landscape.

Winnie is spent and the Greens are nutter.

No-one left so labour wins my vote and I think in Ardern/Robertson they have the right philosophy for what is needed.
Fair enough

You’re obviously an informed voter..it’s just a shame that many people vote on personality over policy

Many votes probably wouldn’t be able to name 3 policies for the party they vote for, and there are some good policies scattered over most parties, but a lot of people can’t be bothered to even do any research as they are already blinkered
Even if they could name three they probably have no idea how they are supposed to work. The parties never volunteer that info and our media rarely dig in to it. And if they do do the answer is usually a deflection. "What have you got against unicorns?".
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Enzedder wrote:I will never vote National again - and ACT is not on my landscape.

Winnie is spent and the Greens are nutter.

No-one left so labour wins my vote and I think in Ardern/Robertson they have the right philosophy for what is needed.
I find this attitude extremely odd and close minded tbh.

It is a bit my grandad voted Labour/Nation, dad did, so I will always vote Labour/National....

In ten years time they could have completely new people and completely new policy that is good and Labour could be completely insane.

Enz- "No I said I would never vote for them again. I am voting Labour!"
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Tbf, policy isn’t everything. A lot of people voting for Ardern would be doing so for her leadership In times of crisis (Chch, White Island, covid-19).
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Wilderbeast wrote:Tbf, policy isn’t everything. A lot of people voting for Ardern would be doing so for her leadership In times of crisis (Chch, White Island, covid-19).
I agree, but currently we need someone good at guiding the country out of one and less being a spokes person during it, (which, I agree, she has proven very good at)

It just seems odd to me you would vote for some individual just because they are good at fronting if the world turns to shit, rather than what the party plans to actually do to run the country.
Post Reply