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

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#939760 24-Nov-2013 08:53

Kyanar:
geekiegeek: I could be off topic here but didn't we already vote on this a few years back? I think it was called a general election. you know, the one where the parties say what they will do in the next 4 years and you vote for which plan you think will make you the least worse off.

That would actually be an argument against asset sales then, because National did not receive a majority of the votes. That's the problem with MMP - the party that gets in does not necessarily have the mandate they inevitably claim to have.

What do you base that on? National's % of party votes was 1,058,636 out of 2,257,336 votes. They also won 42 out of 72 electorate seats. To me that's a majority.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#939761 24-Nov-2013 08:53

KiwiNZ:
richms:
KiwiNZ:

All referendums should be binding.

Not really, because it puts actual decision making abilities into the hands of people who are not equipped to make those decisions.

That is a very arrogant statement. Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not government by a select few.

Nice quote, isn't that American? By all means Government should listen to the wishes of the people, but ultimately on some issues the lay person just isn't capable of giving a well informed rational opinion on highly technical matters.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

alasta

6703 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#939770 24-Nov-2013 09:19

I suspect that a lot of people who voted for National were actually opposed to asset sales. If you're a voter who opposes asset sales, and also opposes the big spending plans of Labour/Greens, and also opposes the Conservative Party's stance on things like abortion and same sex marriage then who were you supposed to vote for? If people had to vote for a party whose policies they support 100% then only ideologues would ever vote.

simplestuff

84 posts

Master Geek

#939776 24-Nov-2013 09:24

Agree, lots of people who didn't vote didn't like the policies of various parties, but as tax payers surely, they are entitled to some opinion on this matter.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#939786 24-Nov-2013 09:57

alasta: I suspect that a lot of people who voted for National were actually opposed to asset sales. If you're a voter who opposes asset sales, and also opposes the big spending plans of Labour/Greens, and also opposes the Conservative Party's stance on things like abortion and same sex marriage then who were you supposed to vote for? If people had to vote for a party whose policies they support 100% then only ideologues would ever vote.

This. Exactly this is why we need this referendum.

plus if it doesn't go their way and they sell the last asset anyway, well, it's too close to an election to be forgotten.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#939792 24-Nov-2013 10:13

sbiddle:
Kyanar:
geekiegeek: I could be off topic here but didn't we already vote on this a few years back? I think it was called a general election. you know, the one where the parties say what they will do in the next 4 years and you vote for which plan you think will make you the least worse off.

That would actually be an argument against asset sales then, because National did not receive a majority of the votes. That's the problem with MMP - the party that gets in does not necessarily have the mandate they inevitably claim to have.

What do you base that on? National's % of party votes was 1,058,636 out of 2,257,336 votes. They also won 42 out of 72 electorate seats. To me that's a majority.

If they had a majority, they wouldn't have needed the support of others. Unless you are talking about the kind of rat-feces (OMG bad word!) majority where the majority of votes are to other parties - example - in a 5 horse race, one party gets 21% of the vote, one pulls 19%, and the rest pull 20% each. Boom, your man gets in, even though 79% of people voted otherwise. Calling that a majority is disingenuous, but it's exactly what happens all the time, although perhaps not to the degree in the example.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#939793 24-Nov-2013 10:16

networkn:
KiwiNZ:
geekiegeek: I could be off topic here but didn't we already vote on this a few years back? I think it was called a general election. you know, the one where the parties say what they will do in the next 4 years and you vote for which plan you think will make you the least worse off.

Democracy, enough support then there is a referendum. Not a bad thing, except they should be binding.

Binding? How could they make this binding? The assets are already sold.

They should never have been allowed to proceed once the referendum was called. So perhaps all we'd have sold was Mighty River.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#939809 24-Nov-2013 11:14

The Referendum has been a sham from the start... They're called Citizen's Initiated Referendum and (from my observation) the Green's have blatantly manipulated that - they're not called Political Initiated Referendum for a reason...

The platform and mandate was clear - vote for us (National) and our supporters and we will sell down these assets. The flip side was that a vote for Labour (and their supporters) was a vote against asset sales. We had a general election with that very offering, and at the end of the day National and their supporters were able to form a government... That's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.

There is talk about how voters may have supported some, but not all of the policies that National were offering. This could be true but surely voters are smart enough that they realise a vote for a party is a vote essentially for all that they offer...

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#939811 24-Nov-2013 11:17

networkn:

Binding? How could they make this binding? The assets are already sold.

Given that the shares are all trading well down on the sale price, treasury could just buy them all back again and the nation would have made a tidy profit.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#939818 24-Nov-2013 12:14

KiwiNZ:
richms:
KiwiNZ:

All referendums should be binding.

Not really, because it puts actual decision making abilities into the hands of people who are not equipped to make those decisions.

That is a very arrogant statement. Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not government by a select few.

I think the programmes of the parties were very clear going into the election, and the people had their choice by voting for the parties/manifestos they wanted.

If you didn't like the policy, vote for the other side, there was clear differentiation. If enough people had cared enough, the other side would have won. If you don't like any of the people standing, stand yourself........

Personally, I'm not that worked up over asset sales one way or the other. In the scheme of the wider picture (the economy, the size of the government, the size of the government's balance assets holding - which incidentally is expanding not shrinking, despite the sales) the whole issue is a noisy sideshow. The dollars, impact on the balance sheet, and impact on the economy are actually pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things. I care more about taxes and government spending.

However, if the Greens et al really think the referendum should be binding, then they need to be consistent and also argue that the referendum on the anti-smacking law should also be binding. They can't have it both ways - otherwise they just look hypocritical.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#939830 24-Nov-2013 12:49

stevenz:
KiwiNZ:
richms:
KiwiNZ:

All referendums should be binding.

Not really, because it puts actual decision making abilities into the hands of people who are not equipped to make those decisions.

That is a very arrogant statement. Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not government by a select few.

So you think the majority of the population understand all the factors involved in this to the extent that they're able to make an educated decision which is in the best interest of the majority for the long term?

Democracy is just the least worst alternative.

We live in what is called a democracy with universal suffrage. Therefore everyone has an equal say.

k14

629 posts

Ultimate Geek

#939843 24-Nov-2013 13:10

Kyanar:
geekiegeek: I could be off topic here but didn't we already vote on this a few years back? I think it was called a general election. you know, the one where the parties say what they will do in the next 4 years and you vote for which plan you think will make you the least worse off.

That would actually be an argument against asset sales then, because National did not receive a majority of the votes. That's the problem with MMP - the party that gets in does not necessarily have the mandate they inevitably claim to have.

Not to mention the fact that just because you vote for a certain party doesn't mean you 100% agree with every single one of their policies. So IMO using the "we were voted in with that mandate blah blah" argument is a load of bs. If they had of run the referendum in parallel with the election then they would have been able to unequivocally say one way or the other what the "people" want.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#939853 24-Nov-2013 13:29

k14:
Kyanar:
geekiegeek: I could be off topic here but didn't we already vote on this a few years back? I think it was called a general election. you know, the one where the parties say what they will do in the next 4 years and you vote for which plan you think will make you the least worse off.

That would actually be an argument against asset sales then, because National did not receive a majority of the votes. That's the problem with MMP - the party that gets in does not necessarily have the mandate they inevitably claim to have.

Not to mention the fact that just because you vote for a certain party doesn't mean you 100% agree with every single one of their policies. So IMO using the "we were voted in with that mandate blah blah" argument is a load of bs. If they had of run the referendum in parallel with the election then they would have been able to unequivocally say one way or the other what the "people" want.

If the asset sales were such a big deal, it would have affected the result on Election Day. It didn't...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#939854 24-Nov-2013 13:37

JimmyH:
KiwiNZ:
richms:
KiwiNZ:

All referendums should be binding.

Not really, because it puts actual decision making abilities into the hands of people who are not equipped to make those decisions.

That is a very arrogant statement. Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not government by a select few.

I think the programmes of the parties were very clear going into the election, and the people had their choice by voting for the parties/manifestos they wanted.

If you didn't like the policy, vote for the other side, there was clear differentiation. If enough people had cared enough, the other side would have won. If you don't like any of the people standing, stand yourself........

Personally, I'm not that worked up over asset sales one way or the other. In the scheme of the wider picture (the economy, the size of the government, the size of the government's balance assets holding - which incidentally is expanding not shrinking, despite the sales) the whole issue is a noisy sideshow. The dollars, impact on the balance sheet, and impact on the economy are actually pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things. I care more about taxes and government spending.

However, if the Greens et al really think the referendum should be binding, then they need to be consistent and also argue that the referendum on the anti-smacking law should also be binding. They can't have it both ways - otherwise they just look hypocritical.

So if the referendum has a vote that the majority votes no to asset sales then the mandate is changed and the sales stopped.

There was a conscience vote in the house, select committees etc re anti smacking, has there been the same re the sales programme?

If there were to future referendums re child abuse then they should be binding

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#939921 24-Nov-2013 16:14

KiwiNZ:
richms:
KiwiNZ:

All referendums should be binding.

Not really, because it puts actual decision making abilities into the hands of people who are not equipped to make those decisions.

That is a very arrogant statement. Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not government by a select few.

I'm sure that if you and every other voter were willing to spend the time and energy understanding the issue(s) surrounding the sales that you might have more say. The way, for example, expert financial and economic advisers are called on to assist our leaders in their decision making.

alasta: I suspect that a lot of people who voted for National were actually opposed to asset sales. If you're a voter who opposes asset sales, and also opposes the big spending plans of Labour/Greens, and also opposes the Conservative Party's stance on things like abortion and same sex marriage then who were you supposed to vote for? If people had to vote for a party whose policies they support 100% then only ideologues would ever vote.

You are free to withhold your vote if neither of the parties offer suitable alternatives. On the other hand, like everyone else, you could do the rational thing and set priorities on particular issues and vote for the party with the greatest number of issues you prioritise the highest. Or, you know, be apathetic about it because that has a track record for solving issues.

k14:
Kyanar:
geekiegeek: I could be off topic here but didn't we already vote on this a few years back? I think it was called a general election. you know, the one where the parties say what they will do in the next 4 years and you vote for which plan you think will make you the least worse off.

That would actually be an argument against asset sales then, because National did not receive a majority of the votes. That's the problem with MMP - the party that gets in does not necessarily have the mandate they inevitably claim to have.

Not to mention the fact that just because you vote for a certain party doesn't mean you 100% agree with every single one of their policies. So IMO using the "we were voted in with that mandate blah blah" argument is a load of bs. If they had of run the referendum in parallel with the election then they would have been able to unequivocally say one way or the other what the "people" want.

They ran the election with this as one of their main objectives; not something they hid in their policy drawer for later but something they deliberately created discussion on. In this case they do have a mandate.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12