Citizen's Initiated Referendum - transparent return envelopes and general discussion

Forums › Off topic › Citizen's Initiated Referendum - transparent return envelopes and general discussion

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952362 14-Dec-2013 21:30

mattwnz:
rugrat:
I.e Labour wants to make kiwi saver compulsory. I already have a super scheme but it doesn't qualify as kiwi saver so under Labour I'd be forced to have two. The one i have has better benefits then kiwi saver.
else.

I am actually surprised that National didn't bring up the point that NZs have already previously voted in a referendum about compulsory retirement saving. NZers overwhelmingly voted against compulsory retirement savings in that referendum. The thing about labour is that they bring in new taxes, and once you have new taxes, they are very difficult to get rid of. They are wanting to bring in a captial gains tax, but not on the house you live in. But people will get around that, and over time the policy will likely get eroded to make it simpler, by then including it on the main home. Look at kiwisaver as an example. I was introduced without too much fuss, as it was voluntry, and had good incentives. Those incentives have slowly been eroded, and not they are wanting to make it compulsory, so it is a bit of a slippery slope when any new policy like that comes in.

Ever since the 1970's, various superannuation schemes started by the then government in power have either been watered down, changed, or abolished by successive governments... The Kiwi saver scheme is no different.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952440 15-Dec-2013 09:42

MaxLV:
code15: It annoys me that there are thousands of New Zealanders who voted for National but are against assets sales.

National promised to:
1. Give tax cuts
2. Sell state owned assets

Did you think you could have your cake and eat it too? How else were the tax cuts meant to be funded. As much as I dislike John Key and his ideologies, he is correct in saying that NZ made their decision last election.

My advice: think more carefully before you vote next election.

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

Voters are allowed to change their minds about the policies of the government they voted for you know.

My hope is that the 67% of us that voted against asset sales remember this referendum result and carry over this dissatisfaction with the asset sales to the ballot box next year.

It was only 67% of less than 50% of course and the issue by that point will be "do you want the government to borrow billions to buy shares" not "do you agree with partial asset sales" because they will all be ancient history by then.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#952441 15-Dec-2013 09:48

I have 5 of my friends and family that voted National in the last election vote no to the asset sales.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952445 15-Dec-2013 09:57

Geektastic:
MaxLV:
code15: It annoys me that there are thousands of New Zealanders who voted for National but are against assets sales.

National promised to:
1. Give tax cuts
2. Sell state owned assets

Did you think you could have your cake and eat it too? How else were the tax cuts meant to be funded. As much as I dislike John Key and his ideologies, he is correct in saying that NZ made their decision last election.

My advice: think more carefully before you vote next election.

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

Voters are allowed to change their minds about the policies of the government they voted for you know.

My hope is that the 67% of us that voted against asset sales remember this referendum result and carry over this dissatisfaction with the asset sales to the ballot box next year.

It was only 67% of less than 50% of course and the issue by that point will be "do you want the government to borrow billions to buy shares" not "do you agree with partial asset sales" because they will all be ancient history by then.

What, you mean like NZ Railways/Toll/Tranzrail? How many times has that been sold an bought again since it was first sold in the 90's?

And then there's the mistaken belief that most politicians have about voters not remembering the 'past' (3 years).

I have always voted Labour, however their decision to bring in a policy of reserving 50% of their candidates positions for women is making me look twice at voting for them next year. I'll remember that policy change of the Labour party when I'm ticking the ballot paper. Women aspiring to become politicians should be held to the same requirements as any man wanting to become a politician, not expect to be 'guaranteed' a place on the candidates list simply because they're female.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#952612 15-Dec-2013 17:22

MaxLV:

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

I don't think you can confidently draw that inference given the very low turnout (around 40%). I suspect that people with a bee in their bonnet about such issues are much more likely to vote than those that are happy (esp as they know it won't alter the policy), so it can be argued it was a skewed result. A safer interpretation of the result might be "Most New Zealanders didn't care enough about asset sales to bother voting on the issue".

Issues where a lot of people care should get a significantly higher turnout - from memory anti-smacking referendum got around 60%.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952658 15-Dec-2013 19:04

JimmyH:
MaxLV:

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

I don't think you can confidently draw that inference given the very low turnout (around 40%). I suspect that people with a bee in their bonnet about such issues are much more likely to vote than those that are happy (esp as they know it won't alter the policy), so it can be argued it was a skewed result. A safer interpretation of the result might be "Most New Zealanders didn't care enough about asset sales to bother voting on the issue".

Issues where a lot of people care should get a significantly higher turnout - from memory anti-smacking referendum got around 60%.

If you didn't vote (in the referendum/election) then you have no say in the results, isn't that what many political party supporters say?

Did you vote in the referendum? If not, why not? Just saying it was pointless just means you believe your 'say' on the subject was pointless and not worth anything. But you have taken time to discuss it here on Geekzone...

Anyone can infer those that didn't vote in the referendum were either for the asset sales, didn't care either way, or were against the sales (depending on your political POV) but didn't see the point in voting against them because the National government had said it doesn't matter what the outcome is, we'll still sell the assets for whatever we can get...

The fact is the majority who did vote are against the asset sales, and the National government will find out ignoring that fact next year may well cost them the election.

Then there is always the statistics. the fact of 67% being against the asset sales can be extrapolated to say two thirds of voters are against the asset sales policy of the National government. Carrying that dissatisfaction with the National government policy over to the election would indicate a massive voter swing against the government.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#952735 15-Dec-2013 21:29

MaxLV:

Did you vote in the referendum? If not, why not? Just saying it was pointless just means you believe your 'say' on the subject was pointless and not worth anything. But you have taken time to discuss it here on Geekzone...

Nope:

1. Because I actually don't feel strongly about the asset sales issue - as I have posted earlier, in the scheme of things I think they are an absolute side show, and are pretty marginal in the scheme of the Crown's overall balance sheet. I don't think they will make any material difference to economic growth, power prices or the government's finances either way. There are plenty of things I care about (like the government getting back into surplus, income tax rates and the state of the health system) - but asset sales isn't one of them. It does, however, astonish me how "het up" some people seem to get about the name on a few share certificates in a commercial company, when it makes no practical difference.

2. Even if I did care, the referendum is pointless. Most of the programme has already been implemented, and without a time machine is unlikely to be unwound. The Government will finish the programme regardless. And in fairness, they did campaign on this when they rang for office.

So I felt no particular need to cost the taxpayers more money by participating in a pointless referendum on an issue I don't really care about.

That doesn't mean that I "believe your 'say' on the subject was pointless and not worth anything", it means I don't care enough about the issue to weigh in. I have as much interest in a referendum on whether or not the programme is finished as I would in a referendum on the colour of Jim Hickey's tie - and I wouldn't waste my time voting on that either. If I did care, I would likely have voted.

Furthermore, with a turnout of around 40%, it would appear to that high proportion of the other voters on the Electoral Roll didn't terribly strongly about the issue - one way or the other - either.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952821 15-Dec-2013 23:50

MaxLV:
Geektastic:
MaxLV:
code15: It annoys me that there are thousands of New Zealanders who voted for National but are against assets sales.

National promised to:
1. Give tax cuts
2. Sell state owned assets

Did you think you could have your cake and eat it too? How else were the tax cuts meant to be funded. As much as I dislike John Key and his ideologies, he is correct in saying that NZ made their decision last election.

My advice: think more carefully before you vote next election.

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

Voters are allowed to change their minds about the policies of the government they voted for you know.

My hope is that the 67% of us that voted against asset sales remember this referendum result and carry over this dissatisfaction with the asset sales to the ballot box next year.

It was only 67% of less than 50% of course and the issue by that point will be "do you want the government to borrow billions to buy shares" not "do you agree with partial asset sales" because they will all be ancient history by then.

What, you mean like NZ Railways/Toll/Tranzrail? How many times has that been sold an bought again since it was first sold in the 90's?

And then there's the mistaken belief that most politicians have about voters not remembering the 'past' (3 years).

I have always voted Labour, however their decision to bring in a policy of reserving 50% of their candidates positions for women is making me look twice at voting for them next year. I'll remember that policy change of the Labour party when I'm ticking the ballot paper. Women aspiring to become politicians should be held to the same requirements as any man wanting to become a politician, not expect to be 'guaranteed' a place on the candidates list simply because they're female.

Absolutely agree - and neither should they get special treatment if they land the gig, either.

I'd be more concerned about this if the companies which are being PARTIALLY sold off were (a) world leading examples of their type (they certainly aren't based on the number of power cuts I get in a year!) and (b) were run to make no profit but sell us cheap electricity (judging from my bills, this is not the case either...!).

Frankly they are divesting themselves of shares in very average businesses that rip off their customers and if they are going to hold investments on my behalf, I would rather they put the money into something better.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#952822 15-Dec-2013 23:58

KiwiNZ: I have 5 of my friends and family that voted National in the last election vote no to the asset sales.

The question should have been, 'did' you agree with asset sales, because anything of worth has basically now been sold before the referendum even took place. Genesis is really the only thing of much value now, and they will not likely get as much for it based on how the other shares have bombed, and the fact there there are now so many energy shares on the share market. People don't want too much exposure to one industry, especially with the real threat of heavy regulation in the future. Look what happens to the value of companies once they start getting regulated heavily.

It is also not really 'asset' sales, as the only thing being sold is 49% of future dividends, and NZers still get 51% of them.
I wasn't really for them selling the shares off , mainly becuase it is politically unpopular, and also because the amount they were getting back was relativity small. The amount they got was only a couple of months of what they borrow from overseas anyway.

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952859 16-Dec-2013 08:11

JimmyH:
MaxLV:

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

I don't think you can confidently draw that inference given the very low turnout (around 40%). I suspect that people with a bee in their bonnet about such issues are much more likely to vote than those that are happy (esp as they know it won't alter the policy), so it can be argued it was a skewed result. A safer interpretation of the result might be "Most New Zealanders didn't care enough about asset sales to bother voting on the issue".

Issues where a lot of people care should get a significantly higher turnout - from memory anti-smacking referendum got around 60%.

I know a number of people who didn't vote in this as they only saw this as a waste of money. They had their say at the general election.

trig42

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#952908 16-Dec-2013 09:50

I voted, because I always like to have my say.

I was under no illusions as to how the referendum would turn out (In fact I think I said about the same turnout as the Local Body elections with about 2/3rd voting no - pretty much what it was).

I did not care how it turned out - they are selling down (not selling off) mediocre assets, and in the case of AirNZ, an asset they only bought to stop it going completely broke. We the taxpayer still own 51% of these assets, and therefore still control them and get a dividend. I voted National at the last election fully aware one of their election policies was to sell these assets. I'm glad they followed through (imagine if they had abandoned them, Labour would be screaming in the streets that National had broken an election promise!).

I can see it costing National the election next time (in fact, I can see National having the most seats of any of the big 3 parties, but because the Greens will never play with the Nats, Labour+Green will be the next Government - then it may be a good time to consider living in Australia).

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952923 16-Dec-2013 09:56

trig42: I voted, because I always like to have my say.

I was under no illusions as to how the referendum would turn out (In fact I think I said about the same turnout as the Local Body elections with about 2/3rd voting no - pretty much what it was).

I did not care how it turned out - they are selling down (not selling off) mediocre assets, and in the case of AirNZ, an asset they only bought to stop it going completely broke. We the taxpayer still own 51% of these assets, and therefore still control them and get a dividend. I voted National at the last election fully aware one of their election policies was to sell these assets. I'm glad they followed through (imagine if they had abandoned them, Labour would be screaming in the streets that National had broken an election promise!).

I can see it costing National the election next time (in fact, I can see National having the most seats of any of the big 3 parties, but because the Greens will never play with the Nats, Labour+Green will be the next Government - then it may be a good time to consider living in Australia).

I don't think it will cost them the Election at all, having said that I don't think they will get in but only because of the MMP system and they no longer have Act to help out.

As an aside any Labour /Greens agreement scare me a lot, I would rather see Labour get in without them.

The rest i agree with as there is some more money in the coffers to give away and continue funding poverty

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

trig42

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#952931 16-Dec-2013 10:03

It will also be a good time now to buy shares in those companies that have been sold down as Cunliffe has said Labour 'probably will' buy back the assets. IMO they 'probably will' also buy them back at some stupid price - making people a nice profit along the way. But it will keep their voters happy (and their likely coalition partners). Why??

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952971 16-Dec-2013 11:05

trig42: It will also be a good time now to buy shares in those companies that have been sold down as Cunliffe has said Labour 'probably will' buy back the assets. IMO they 'probably will' also buy them back at some stupid price - making people a nice profit along the way. But it will keep their voters happy (and their likely coalition partners). Why??

Yes its kind of ironic isn't it that Labour and Greens have cost the tax payer so much in these sales and look like the cat that got the cream, sad really.

If they buy back like they did the Lemon NZ Rail then it will cost the tax payer a lot more and then all the left supporters can have a smug look on their face and say the extra cost to the rate payer was Nationals fault as that is what the society we live in is all about, abducting responsibility.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#952983 16-Dec-2013 11:22

jeffnz:
trig42: It will also be a good time now to buy shares in those companies that have been sold down as Cunliffe has said Labour 'probably will' buy back the assets. IMO they 'probably will' also buy them back at some stupid price - making people a nice profit along the way. But it will keep their voters happy (and their likely coalition partners). Why??

Yes its kind of ironic isn't it that Labour and Greens have cost the tax payer so much in these sales and look like the cat that got the cream, sad really.

If they buy back like they did the Lemon NZ Rail then it will cost the tax payer a lot more and then all the left supporters can have a smug look on their face and say the extra cost to the rate payer was Nationals fault as that is what the society we live in is all about, abducting responsibility.

The party that enacted the right to call for a citizens initiated referendum was the National Party. Then using the legislative right to do so in excess of 300,000 New Zealanders called for the referendum in which in excess of 1,000,000 voted in said referendum. I do not how it is deduced that the "blame" for using a legitimate electoral process is vested in the Labour and Green parties.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12