Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

Forums › Politics › Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

16886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4756

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1840842 7-Aug-2017 22:41

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

There are two types of voters.

1. The voter that ALWAYS votes National or LABOUR. Always. These voters add nothing to the election. Nothing, its a null vote.

2. Floating. These can be generally National voters (like me) but vote Labour as Nats do nothing, or Labs have spunk and are get ahead. Or Nats have boring stability, and Labs are inexperienced. These are the only voters that keep Governments, or change them.

IIRC you stated that you can vote years ahead? Your vote doesnt matter.

Not sure how 1) is a null vote, all votes cast legally are valid.

2) I think you mean swing voters :)

It's the target for any party.

networkn

16886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4756

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1840845 7-Aug-2017 22:46

One person supports this post

Fred99:

The US still has a problem with $20 trillion debt, and we have a problem for the next decade or more to pay for the infrastructure we need to cope with the population increase through immigration, as well as clean-up of our filthy rivers thanks to the dairy boom, the government debt of 50% GDP, then the ~200% of GDP private debt that borrowers have poured into the housing bubble and over-priced farms. NZ has fared okay - so far, but the GFC isn't really over yet.

Well to be fair infrastructure is a problem every country has, the USA is in pretty bad shape itself. Bigger population requires more houses, requires more infrastructure.

I agree, we have some challenges ahead, it's going to take an experienced set of hands with proven financial backgrounds and excellent policy understanding. To my mind only one party is in the race at this point.

Labour are making some big promises, I have no faith they will stop fighting amoungst themselves to get a grip on what's required let alone execute to get these things into action without causing all sorts of other issues.

To my mind National are far from perfect, but Labour is not even in the same Solar system as it.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

Geektastic

11174 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3539

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1840846 7-Aug-2017 22:47

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

Yep, a real vibrant economy with people sleeping on the streets and living in their cars and mental health services in a state of collapse and people dying from synthetic weed while the Dear Leader insists there is nothing to see here so everything will just carry on as before. Steady hands, real world experience, right direction, hallelujah praise the catholic lord!

At the end of the day, those things are, regrettably but necessarily, less important than the economy as a whole. Without a sound economy, there will be no funds to pay to fix any of those things, ever.

Remember, a sound NZ economy cannot be hailed as any Govt's good work. We a5re so small we are a blip on the global economy, we ride that wave. The current Govt is reactionary, and they believe in allowing the market to rule. So the globe and the and the NZ markets rule. Not a lot to manage there, its being self managed.

By the same token it would be extremely easy for a government to ruin the economy...

Excluding global factors, not that easy. We could encourage immigration which is good for the economy, and ignore the effect on housing prices, thats ruined many people's ability to have their own home. We could also ignore the road and transport infrastructure in AKL, where many immigrants settle, and end up with real congestion issues that should have been managed over these years. Yes, maybe you're right

They could raise taxes, duties, levies etc to deleterious levels pretty fast if they felt like it, too.

There are two types of voters.

1. The voter that ALWAYS votes National or LABOUR. Always. These voters add nothing to the election. Nothing, its a null vote.

2. Floating. These can be generally National voters (like me) but vote Labour as Nats do nothing, or Labs have spunk and are get ahead. Or Nats have boring stability, and Labs are inexperienced. These are the only voters that keep Governments, or change them.

IIRC you stated that you can vote years ahead? Your vote doesnt matter.

All votes matter equally.

Voter turnout fluctuates. One vote is enough to win on the day. It matters not whether that vote is cast by someone indecisive until the last moment or someone who knows their own mind well in advance.

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840874 8-Aug-2017 07:53

networkn:

tdgeek:

There are two types of voters.

1. The voter that ALWAYS votes National or LABOUR. Always. These voters add nothing to the election. Nothing, its a null vote.

2. Floating. These can be generally National voters (like me) but vote Labour as Nats do nothing, or Labs have spunk and are get ahead. Or Nats have boring stability, and Labs are inexperienced. These are the only voters that keep Governments, or change them.

IIRC you stated that you can vote years ahead? Your vote doesnt matter.

Not sure how 1) is a null vote, all votes cast legally are valid.

2) I think you mean swing voters :)

It's the target for any party.

Off course I mean swing voters. The votes that are red or blue every election based on blind loyalty are null votes, There are the same every election, and are not based on performance, they are based on "I always vote for *" Its the same with discussions. Either a political discussion is based on, well, discussing, or its repeating the "I always vote for x" A discussion by swing voters is a relevant discussion, the rest isn't

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840875 8-Aug-2017 07:59

networkn:

Fred99:

The US still has a problem with $20 trillion debt, and we have a problem for the next decade or more to pay for the infrastructure we need to cope with the population increase through immigration, as well as clean-up of our filthy rivers thanks to the dairy boom, the government debt of 50% GDP, then the ~200% of GDP private debt that borrowers have poured into the housing bubble and over-priced farms. NZ has fared okay - so far, but the GFC isn't really over yet.

Well to be fair infrastructure is a problem every country has, the USA is in pretty bad shape itself. Bigger population requires more houses, requires more infrastructure.

I agree, we have some challenges ahead, it's going to take an experienced set of hands with proven financial backgrounds and excellent policy understanding. To my mind only one party is in the race at this point.

Labour are making some big promises, I have no faith they will stop fighting amoungst themselves to get a grip on what's required let alone execute to get these things into action without causing all sorts of other issues.

To my mind National are far from perfect, but Labour is not even in the same Solar system as it.

The US infrastructure is very very very bad. Its based on letting it slide, its not based on population increase % that we have been creating by immigration. Its very easy for a small population to outgrow itself

National are experienced as they have been in power for 9 years, and they are your only permanent choice. Immigration, housing and infrastructure and not been dealt with they have been left. Green environment policies have been left. All of thats not great, not a good look, experience wise IMHO

And I am a National voter

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840876 8-Aug-2017 08:05

Geektastic:

All votes matter equally.

Voter turnout fluctuates. One vote is enough to win on the day. It matters not whether that vote is cast by someone indecisive until the last moment or someone who knows their own mind well in advance.

Your choosing to miss the point, but thats ok. Every election, there care a lot of voters that are fixed in stone, for this and future elections. They are not based on the performance of the Govt. The swing voters are not indecisive. They are voting democratically based on many factors, not blind loyalty. They are the only ones choosing a Govt change or keeping the Govt in power. Take you, you're not voting National as you believe they are the best option, you will always vote National, you said that yourself. You are a fixed vote and are not voting based on the leader, the team, or the policies.

networkn

16886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4756

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1840901 8-Aug-2017 08:59

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

All votes matter equally.

Voter turnout fluctuates. One vote is enough to win on the day. It matters not whether that vote is cast by someone indecisive until the last moment or someone who knows their own mind well in advance.

Your choosing to miss the point, but thats ok. Every election, there care a lot of voters that are fixed in stone, for this and future elections. They are not based on the performance of the Govt. The swing voters are not indecisive. They are voting democratically based on many factors, not blind loyalty. They are the only ones choosing a Govt change or keeping the Govt in power. Take you, you're not voting National as you believe they are the best option, you will always vote National, you said that yourself. You are a fixed vote and are not voting based on the leader, the team, or the policies.

My decision to vote National is based on performance. Yes there are lots of things to improve, but there always will be under any Govt. What has Labour done under Opposition except oppose for the sake of it, have multiple fights resulting in many changed leaders, failed to communicate to it's core group of voters, and generally fail to come up with any sort of original policy bar MAYBE the last couple of days? What makes you think they will run a Govt any better? There is a lot of general talk about improving NZ for the middle and low income earners, but to my mind very little by way of rationalised policy.

I consider a switch of Govt right now to be a complete waste of time, from a group who is very likely to learn as it goes. Even their Coalition partners are a disaster amongst themselves.

For example, what *specifically* has Labour said it will change to National policies around waterways etc, that they have committed to doing and under what timeframe?

MikeB4

12179 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5707

Trusted

Reply # 1840905 8-Aug-2017 09:05

2 people support this post

I am still undecided, I am not that impressed with any of the contenders.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840921 8-Aug-2017 09:17

One person supports this post

networkn:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

All votes matter equally.

Voter turnout fluctuates. One vote is enough to win on the day. It matters not whether that vote is cast by someone indecisive until the last moment or someone who knows their own mind well in advance.

Your choosing to miss the point, but thats ok. Every election, there care a lot of voters that are fixed in stone, for this and future elections. They are not based on the performance of the Govt. The swing voters are not indecisive. They are voting democratically based on many factors, not blind loyalty. They are the only ones choosing a Govt change or keeping the Govt in power. Take you, you're not voting National as you believe they are the best option, you will always vote National, you said that yourself. You are a fixed vote and are not voting based on the leader, the team, or the policies.

My decision to vote National is based on performance. Yes there are lots of things to improve, but there always will be under any Govt. What has Labour done under Opposition except oppose for the sake of it, have multiple fights resulting in many changed leaders, failed to communicate to it's core group of voters, and generally fail to come up with any sort of original policy bar MAYBE the last couple of days? What makes you think they will run a Govt any better? There is a lot of general talk about improving NZ for the middle and low income earners, but to my mind very little by way of rationalised policy.

I consider a switch of Govt right now to be a complete waste of time, from a group who is very likely to learn as it goes. Even their Coalition partners are a disaster amongst themselves.

For example, what *specifically* has Labour said it will change to National policies around waterways etc, that they have committed to doing and under what timeframe?

So, should Labour win, and stay two terms we should not vote National next time as they will need to learn? The Govt is just MP's, the data and advice comes from the Govt employees in the Ministries that doesnt change

What Is Nationals policy on housing, housing crisis, infrastructure, eco? There isnt one, its been left to rot under let the market sort it, that is a fail. No one knows how a Labour Govt would go. If they did nothing to tackle the issues above, then its the same as National. As far as infights and controversies are concerned, the other thread has a list of National people that did dodgy things but still remain.

Had Little remained I'd vote National as usual. I know what to expect, nothing, they may as well stay there. But JA could, might, possibly could be a mover and shaker. Remember the days of hard left or hard right are long gone, they are both just off centre parties. I look art it this way. Will we want no action on issues, or action on issues? The policy of letting the market sort it out has failed

Paul1977

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 603

Reply # 1840931 8-Aug-2017 09:40

tdgeek: The votes that are red or blue every election based on blind loyalty are null votes, There are the same every election, and are not based on performance, they are based on "I always vote for *" Its the same with discussions. Either a political discussion is based on, well, discussing, or its repeating the "I always vote for x" A discussion by swing voters is a relevant discussion, the rest isn't

Whether they are based on blind loyalty or not, they are most certainly not null votes.

They would only be null votes if the blind loyalty for each party was equal (i.e. would cancelled each other out), and by "each party" I mean EVERY party - not just Nat and Lab.

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840933 8-Aug-2017 09:50

Paul1977:

tdgeek: The votes that are red or blue every election based on blind loyalty are null votes, There are the same every election, and are not based on performance, they are based on "I always vote for *" Its the same with discussions. Either a political discussion is based on, well, discussing, or its repeating the "I always vote for x" A discussion by swing voters is a relevant discussion, the rest isn't

Whether they are based on blind loyalty or not, they are most certainly not null votes.

They would only be null votes if the blind loyalty for each party was equal (i.e. would cancelled each other out), and by "each party" I mean every party - not just Nat and Lab.

You know what I mean. If the same people every election (and doesnt have to be the same number in each party to cancel each other out), then every election has the same fixed voters. The rest of the voters are voters who can change their vote, they are voting on performance or lack of it

It may well be that 80% vote with blind loyalty, lets say they vote 53% Nats and 47% Labour/Greens. That's fixed. The remaining 20% of the voting population can change. I take that 80% as null voters as each election, nothing changes.

Paul1977

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 603

Reply # 1840941 8-Aug-2017 10:05

tdgeek:

You know what I mean. If the same people every election (and doesnt have to be the same number in each party to cancel each other out), then every election has the same fixed voters. The rest of the voters are voters who can change their vote, they are voting on performance or lack of it

It may well be that 80% vote with blind loyalty, lets say they vote 53% Nats and 47% Labour/Greens. That's fixed. The remaining 20% of the voting population can change. I take that 80% as null voters as each election, nothing changes.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

I understand you are saying that there is a large amount of votes that are the same year after year and don't change, regardless of performance or policy. But I don't understand how these could be considered null. If all the loyalty votes were omitted, elections results could be vastly different. Surely they would only be "null" if their omission would cause no change in outcome.

Mathematically they could only cancel each other out if every party's loyalty based party votes were numerically the same.

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840948 8-Aug-2017 10:11

Paul1977:

tdgeek:

You know what I mean. If the same people every election (and doesnt have to be the same number in each party to cancel each other out), then every election has the same fixed voters. The rest of the voters are voters who can change their vote, they are voting on performance or lack of it

It may well be that 80% vote with blind loyalty, lets say they vote 53% Nats and 47% Labour/Greens. That's fixed. The remaining 20% of the voting population can change. I take that 80% as null voters as each election, nothing changes.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

I understand you are saying that there is a large amount of votes that are the same year after year and don't change, regardless of performance or policy. But I don't understand how these could be considered null. If all the loyalty votes were omitted, elections results could be vastly different. Surely they would only be "null" if their omission would cause no change in outcome.

Mathematically they could only cancel each other out if every party's loyalty based party votes were numerically the same.

I mean null as in no effect.

networkn

16886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4756

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1840950 8-Aug-2017 10:12

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

Paul1977:

tdgeek:

You know what I mean. If the same people every election (and doesnt have to be the same number in each party to cancel each other out), then every election has the same fixed voters. The rest of the voters are voters who can change their vote, they are voting on performance or lack of it

It may well be that 80% vote with blind loyalty, lets say they vote 53% Nats and 47% Labour/Greens. That's fixed. The remaining 20% of the voting population can change. I take that 80% as null voters as each election, nothing changes.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

I understand you are saying that there is a large amount of votes that are the same year after year and don't change, regardless of performance or policy. But I don't understand how these could be considered null. If all the loyalty votes were omitted, elections results could be vastly different. Surely they would only be "null" if their omission would cause no change in outcome.

Mathematically they could only cancel each other out if every party's loyalty based party votes were numerically the same.

I mean null as in no effect.

I think everyone understands what you mean, and have done for the last page or so, they just think you are wrong :) You might want to consider you might actually be wrong on this :)

tdgeek

11906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2067

Trusted

Reply # 1840959 8-Aug-2017 10:24

networkn:

tdgeek:

Paul1977:

tdgeek:

You know what I mean. If the same people every election (and doesnt have to be the same number in each party to cancel each other out), then every election has the same fixed voters. The rest of the voters are voters who can change their vote, they are voting on performance or lack of it

It may well be that 80% vote with blind loyalty, lets say they vote 53% Nats and 47% Labour/Greens. That's fixed. The remaining 20% of the voting population can change. I take that 80% as null voters as each election, nothing changes.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

I understand you are saying that there is a large amount of votes that are the same year after year and don't change, regardless of performance or policy. But I don't understand how these could be considered null. If all the loyalty votes were omitted, elections results could be vastly different. Surely they would only be "null" if their omission would cause no change in outcome.

Mathematically they could only cancel each other out if every party's loyalty based party votes were numerically the same.

I mean null as in no effect.

I think everyone understands what you mean, and have done for the last page or so, they just think you are wrong :) You might want to consider you might actually be wrong on this :)

ok. So when the voters who never ever change the vote, can affect the election? No, I dont agree, but I'll put it to bed :-)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11