Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[John Nick]

if Labour kept fixing things, why do they get voted out?

When I was a kid, the owner of a neighboring farm was a National MP, Les Gandar, who was a Minister of Education and then the Higher Commissioner to the UK. He told my parents one time that Labour gets the economy into trouble by overspending and National sorts it out by cutting spending until there’s enough money for Labour to make big expensive promises at Election time which people decide they’d like after years of austerity under National.

Basically, people swing from one to other, not usually used on what is best for the country but what is best for them. Most voters are greedy… they either vote to get a share of what others have or to protect what they do have.

Exactly miket12.
Tax cuts were the promise this election but not by Labour.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I thought it was a driver with all the reports of local buyers being outbid from offshore, albeit anecdotal. A lot of them were effectively money laundering according to the Panama papers, but I'm getting a bit conspiracy nut there. Ever read them?

It was foreign buyers, then investors, then lack of a capital gains tax…

Reality is interest rates went down and house prices went up. Now interest rates have gone up and house prices have gone down.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Exactly miket12.
Tax cuts were the promise this election but not by Labour.

Have you forgotten about Labours tax cut of GST off fruit and veges?

Yea, it was pretty forgettable…

 

[John Nick]

Have you forgotten about Labours tax cut of GST off fruit and veges?

Yea, it was pretty forgettable…

Yet people had been calling for it for years. And I have just about forgotten about tax cuts that nobody was asking for.

 

[Noitall]

if Labour kept fixing things, why do they get voted out?

When I was a kid, the owner of a neighboring farm was a National MP, Les Gandar, who was a Minister of Education and then the Higher Commissioner to the UK. He told my parents one time that Labour gets the economy into trouble by overspending and National sorts it out by cutting spending until there’s enough money for Labour to make big expensive promises at Election time which people decide they’d like after years of austerity under National.

Basically, people swing from one to other, not usually used on what is best for the country but what is best for them. Most voters are greedy… they either vote to get a share of what others have or to protect what they do have.

What a yarn, was that in an election year? I saw a labour mp once who said national were shit, so they must be.

 

[El Chuckie]

if Labour kept fixing things, why do they get voted out?

When I was a kid, the owner of a neighboring farm was a National MP, Les Gandar, who was a Minister of Education and then the Higher Commissioner to the UK. He told my parents one time that Labour gets the economy into trouble by overspending and National sorts it out by cutting spending until there’s enough money for Labour to make big expensive promises at Election time which people decide they’d like after years of austerity under National.

Basically, people swing from one to other, not usually used on what is best for the country but what is best for them. Most voters are greedy… they either vote to get a share of what others have or to protect what they do have.

I almost agree with that, though Gander has understandably made his party out to look better in that scenario. I'd tweak his interpretation a bit: we go with Labour when we feel that National gets a bit to chummy with their big corporate mates and forget the middle guy or shit on the poor; we go with National when we feel that Labour get too nannying of us and/or profligate with our taxes. The most enduring leaders are those that tread that middle ground well - Clark and Key were very good at this.

I think we sometimes forget that we're incredibly fortunate to live in a stable country that has mostly mild political swings of the pendulum. Despite what rabid social media fringers might have us believe, there hasn't really been a major upheaval since Muldoon's hyper-control from 81-84 into Lange's Labour 84-87. Bolger's subsequent National (90-93, with Richardson in charge of the purse strings for the first term) was distinct for trying to continue with Lange's first term revolution, but it petered out because the public was uncomfortable with the social cost.

What we have annoys revolutionary types because it's boring to them, but I'd say it's a credit to voters and also to politicians who tread the middle ground well. Even our supposed 'extremes' (Greens and Act) aren't really all that extreme, and are still willing to talk to, debate with, and even agree with, each other from time to time. (Seymour and Swarbrick are good value on the chat.) They aren't loony in the way that some fringe parties are overseas. Our supposedly nationalist, anti-foreign party (NZ First) are economically centrist - if anything, more left than right. Even the anti-Maori / 'one NZ' line rings hollow when their 2ic (Shane Jones) is probably the most fluent reo speaker and kaupapa-versed person in Parliament.

 

[Brightman]

if Labour kept fixing things, why do they get voted out?

When I was a kid, the owner of a neighboring farm was a National MP, Les Gandar, who was a Minister of Education and then the Higher Commissioner to the UK. He told my parents one time that Labour gets the economy into trouble by overspending and National sorts it out by cutting spending until there’s enough money for Labour to make big expensive promises at Election time which people decide they’d like after years of austerity under National.

Basically, people swing from one to other, not usually used on what is best for the country but what is best for them. Most voters are greedy… they either vote to get a share of what others have or to protect what they do have.

I agree with this sentiment and the back and forth, chop and change is driving this country further behind where we were and where we should be.
How can we build and progress with such upheavals so frequently..

 

[El Chuckie]

I agree with this sentiment and the back and forth, chop and change is driving this country further behind where we were and where we should be.
How can we build and progress with such upheavals so frequently..

If you look at NZ over 100 years, we have built and progressed. Some areas slower than others, but wouldn't you still rather be living now than in 1924?

Back and forth chop and change, I'd argue, ultimately maintains political stability. Totalitarianism also maintains stability - all good if the dude (and it usually is a dude) in charge wants what you want. But if he doesn't, you can't get rid of him. And even if he does he'll probably start to change his mind to maintain power, and you still won't be able to get rid of him.

 

[Noitall]

If you look at NZ over 100 years, we have built and progressed. Some areas slower than others, but wouldn't you still rather be living now than in 1924?

Back and forth chop and change, I'd argue, ultimately maintains political stability. Totalitarianism also maintains stability - all good if the dude (and it usually is a dude) in charge wants what you want. But if he doesn't, you can't get rid of him. And even if he does he'll probably start to change his mind to maintain power, and you still won't be able to get rid of him.

What’s the need to turn it into sport or war with opposition though? Why couldn’t we just vote candidates with no affiliation into a NZ government?

 

[dean]

Do you think Key's opening up the property market to offshore buyers was a huge mistake in hindsight?

I do.

 

[Tragic]

Do you think Key's opening up the property market to offshore buyers was a huge mistake in hindsight?

What would be the upside of that policy? I can't think of any reason why it would be good for the country. So who is it for?

 

[Noitall]

What would be the upside of that policy? I can't think of any reason why it would be good for the country. So who is it for?

Peter Thiel

 

[Worried2Death]

What would be the upside of that policy? I can't think of any reason why it would be good for the country. So who is it for?

Every seller who took the ?

 

[Noitall]

Every seller who took the ?

Backfired a tad with Kim Dotcom.

 

[El Chuckie]

What’s the need to turn it into sport or war with opposition though? Why couldn’t we just vote candidates with no affiliation into a NZ government?

I think the whole combative approach serves two purposes, both performative: 1. goes back a couple of centuries to when parliaments were first established. Kind of a duel with rhetoric replacing swords. A way of proving that you are different to your opponent without slicing his head off. 2. attracts the media. Media needs conflict because that's what people want (or that's what media think people want, and the public haven't really done a good job of convincing media otherwise), so performative conflict gets the parties' messages out there. I'm not a big fan of this, but people have busy lives and no-one wants to sit down at night and read through govt policy white papers and sub-committee debates. People want/need headlines and bullet points.

Re more independent candidates: totally agree. The end of party affiliation would be true democracy - along with referenda on big issues - but it would in all likelihood ultimately lead to statis as single- or narrow-issue localised candidates push (and get selected on) agendas that don't necessarily serve the country. While I don't think that serving local community interests is inherently bad - though bugger-all people run or vote in council elections - for the past couple hundred years the nation state has been the most powerful organising system. It'd be interesting to see if that could be dismantled and replaced with something equally effective without civil conflict, but I'd rather some other country did it first so we could get a look at it.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I think the whole combative approach serves two purposes, both performative: 1. goes back a couple of centuries to when parliaments were first established. Kind of a duel with rhetoric replacing swords. A way of proving that you are different to your opponent without slicing his head off. 2. attracts the media. Media needs conflict because that's what people want (or that's what media think people want, and the public haven't really done a good job of convincing media otherwise), so performative conflict gets the parties' messages out there. I'm not a big fan of this, but people have busy lives and no-one wants to sit down at night and read through govt policy white papers and sub-committee debates. People want/need headlines and bullet points.

Re more independent candidates: totally agree. The end of party affiliation would be true democracy - along with referenda on big issues - but it would in all likelihood ultimately lead to statis as single- or narrow-issue localised candidates push (and get selected on) agendas that don't necessarily serve the country. While I don't think that serving local community interests is inherently bad - though bugger-all people run or vote in council elections - for the past couple hundred years the nation state has been the most powerful organising system. It'd be interesting to see if that could be dismantled and replaced with something equally effective without civil conflict, but I'd rather some other country did it first so we could get a look at it.

I like the Swiss model of direct democracy where everything important is voted on by referendums.

Building off of that and taking it next level we could expanded it with technology, whereby every govt decision could be voted on directly by voters instead of parliament. Govt could propose annual budgets for operational stuff and everyone could electronically tweak it to their preferences.

Then we could truely make individual democratic trade off for health, education, defence, police or repaying govt debt. We could approve or decline individual infrastructure projects, increase/ decrease taxes (if we altered the expenses), etc.

Every decision (eg smoking laws) could be decided directly by voters not parliamentarians.

Govt would be mere managers and enact the peoples votes and their main function would be promoting and explaining their ideas for the voters to decide on.

Could this be the most pure form of democracy? Would the people take it seriously and engage enough for it to work?

 

[Worried2Death]

I like the Swiss model of direct democracy where everything important is voted on by referendums.

Building off of that and taking it next level we could expanded it with technology, whereby every govt decision could be voted on directly by voters instead of parliament. Govt could propose annual budgets for operational stuff and everyone could electronically tweak it to their preferences.

Then we could truely make individual democratic trade off for health, education, defence, police or repaying govt debt. We could approve or decline individual infrastructure projects, increase/ decrease taxes (if we altered the expenses), etc.

Every decision (eg smoking laws) could be decided directly by voters not parliamentarians.

Govt would be mere managers and enact the peoples votes and their main function would be promoting and explaining their ideas for the voters to decide on.

Could this be the most pure form of democracy? Would the people take it seriously and engage enough for it to work?

Could be, as long as most of the voting public aren't stoned idiots like us.

*speaking for this forum. Okay myself really.

 

[tyrael]

Yet people had been calling for it for years.

I think people have been calling for it because it should be done not because we get to save money. It's like the reverse of smoking. Labour using it as a selling point was laugh out loud bad.

I just want to see shit get done. Kind of like wanting the warriors to sign a prop already.

 

[Noitall]

I think the whole combative approach serves two purposes, both performative: 1. goes back a couple of centuries to when parliaments were first established. Kind of a duel with rhetoric replacing swords. A way of proving that you are different to your opponent without slicing his head off. 2. attracts the media. Media needs conflict because that's what people want (or that's what media think people want, and the public haven't really done a good job of convincing media otherwise), so performative conflict gets the parties' messages out there. I'm not a big fan of this, but people have busy lives and no-one wants to sit down at night and read through govt policy white papers and sub-committee debates. People want/need headlines and bullet points.

Re more independent candidates: totally agree. The end of party affiliation would be true democracy - along with referenda on big issues - but it would in all likelihood ultimately lead to statis as single- or narrow-issue localised candidates push (and get selected on) agendas that don't necessarily serve the country. While I don't think that serving local community interests is inherently bad - though bugger-all people run or vote in council elections - for the past couple hundred years the nation state has been the most powerful organising system. It'd be interesting to see if that could be dismantled and replaced with something equally effective without civil conflict, but I'd rather some other country did it first so we could get a look at it.

I don’t think it require civil conflict at all, people are willing to have a referendum on the principles of the treaty, why can’t we have a democratic referendum of the principles of democracy and how it’s performed? I think the tribalism of politics is in a dangerous place in parts of the world and it tends to be the middle aged to older people that tend to get entrenched in a particular camp, the younger people seem to gravitate towards the minor parties in this country anyway, and I think as time goes on there’s going to be appetite for change towards a more inclusive rather than divisive aspect to politics, I think most would concede that the current form we have isn’t serving the majority for consecutive governments. It’s viewed largely that labour favours beneficiaries and national favours the rich but candidates are hamstrung by their particular parties overall image by the voter. Media has for some time now been a more effective platform for unbiased information than opposition in my view, people paint a picture of money allocated to media as buying them off which is complete fallacy, unless they’ve paid every journalist personally, then it’s nothing more than transparency, they are members of the public too that government makes decisions for like the rest of us. Shows like q and a and the nation have provided great unbiased information that hasn’t painted any particular party in a great light at times. Donors would ever be a threat for buying off media which they likely are, just as they are for politicians. Mike provided an example earlier of an mp telling people their party sorts everything out, but how could anyone take that seriously? I would prefer to be provided with the unbiased information to make my own informed views. I found it interesting the labour nannying comment you made in an earlier post because as an example I could never see a national party offering the public a cannabis referendum. Whether people like it or not, it was a tool offered by them as a contribution to the economy through a tax form if successful and one that wasn’t an overwhelming loss whatsoever, in fact enough that some sort of change should be considered. The public were also offered a tool in the housing market in the form of a CGT under David cunliffe, which the country rejected. Apart from that I really couldn’t disagree with much else in that post and further to your later point, we are lucky and it could be much worse. Sorry for such a long winded response.

 

[El Chuckie]

I don’t think it require civil conflict at all, people are willing to have a referendum on the principles of the treaty, why can’t we have a democratic referendum of the principles of democracy and how it’s performed? I think the tribalism of politics is in a dangerous place in parts of the world and it tends to be the middle aged to older people that tend to get entrenched in a particular camp, the younger people seem to gravitate towards the minor parties in this country anyway, and I think as time goes on there’s going to be appetite for change towards a more inclusive rather than divisive aspect to politics, I think most would concede that the current form we have isn’t serving the majority for consecutive governments. It’s viewed largely that labour favours beneficiaries and national favours the rich but candidates are hamstrung by their particular parties overall image by the voter. Media has for some time now been a more effective platform for unbiased information than opposition in my view, people paint a picture of money allocated to media as buying them off which is complete fallacy, unless they’ve paid every journalist personally, then it’s nothing more than transparency, they are members of the public too that government makes decisions for like the rest of us. Shows like q and a and the nation have provided great unbiased information that hasn’t painted any particular party in a great light at times. Donors would ever be a threat for buying off media which they likely are, just as they are for politicians. Mike provided an example earlier of an mp telling people their party sorts everything out, but how could anyone take that seriously? I would prefer to be provided with the unbiased information to make my own informed views. I found it interesting the labour nannying comment you made in an earlier post because as an example I could never see a national party offering the public a cannabis referendum. Whether people like it or not, it was a tool offered by them as a contribution to the economy through a tax form if successful and one that wasn’t an overwhelming loss whatsoever, in fact enough that some sort of change should be considered. The public were also offered a tool in the housing market in the form of a CGT under David cunliffe, which the country rejected. Apart from that I really couldn’t disagree with much else in that post and further to your later point, we are lucky and it could be much worse. Sorry for such a long winded response.

Nah, good read, bro. Funny you should mention a cannabis referendum because that's one area ACT and the Greens agree on: maybe a Private Members' Bill with conscience voting could sneak it through, like the End of Life Choice Bill. Often it's the party least expected to introduce something that gets it through: think National with the Marriage Equality Act. Polls these days (reliable ones, with proper sampling) show most NZers are okay with a CGT - I suspect Cunliffe was not the right vector for that particular policy. Luxon probably is the right kind of chap for introducing one, but I highly doubt he will.