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 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12

5814 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#940131 25-Nov-2013 09:45

I am sure the results of this referendum will come out wildly in favour of the No option (after all, it is the only one being pushed).

It is an emotive issue, people do not like to see the government 'selling the family silver' and get all wound up about it.
The Greens are pushing it hard (and emotionally).

I voted (yes by the way), only because I like to vote in everything (so I can then whinge about it later), but I have talked to about 10 people who have already thrown their papers in the rubbish. the majority of those told me if they had to vote, they would have voted Yes, a couple said they didn't give a sh*t and a couple said no. When I asked why they didn't bother voting, most (I'd say 7) said they thought we had already chosen a government who said they would do it in the last election.

It will be a resounding No I think, but the turnout will be tiny (in comparison to a general election), maybe even less than local body turnouts. What will that say? That most people don't actually care.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#940152 25-Nov-2013 10:19

1080p:

I have no issue with you complaining to the manufacturer. My issue is with your complaint that the manufacturer won't listen to you because their market research indicates the majority of their customers like the product.

And when the referendum has its result, we'll know just how accurate that market research is.

Bee

732 posts

Ultimate Geek

#940163 25-Nov-2013 10:45

I think everyone is predicting an overwhelming majority voting "NO" mainly because those who think "Yes" won't vote...

But regardless of the result, now that everything is sold apart from Solid Energy which they cant sell, really what is the point of this referendum at all??? I propose a new question:

"Do you have any idea what the point of this referendum is?"

Doing your best is much more important than being the best.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#940175 25-Nov-2013 11:08

richms:Voted yes to piss off the idiots that wanted the referendum. Otherwise wouldn't have bothered since its non binding.

Don't forget, you can spoil your voting paper to protest the referendum. I'll be ticking yes and no.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940180 25-Nov-2013 11:17

Bee: I think everyone is predicting an overwhelming majority voting "NO" mainly because those who think "Yes" won't vote...

But regardless of the result, now that everything is sold apart from Solid Energy which they cant sell, really what is the point of this referendum at all??? I propose a new question:

"Do you have any idea what the point of this referendum is?"

Once the required number of signatures were obtained to force a referendum the honourable thing would have been for the government to respect the people they represent and postpone the sales until the outcome of the referendum
is known. They have instead decided to give the NZ public the middle finger salute which is very arrogant.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#940188 25-Nov-2013 11:27

KiwiNZ:
Once the required number of signatures were obtained to force a referendum the honourable thing would have been for the government to respect the people they represent and postpone the sales until the outcome of the referendum
is known. They have instead decided to give the NZ public the middle finger salute which is very arrogant.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It's one thing to ignore the outcome, completely another to say 'f*ck you, we're doing it anyway' before even having an outcome. At least with the first, we can delude ourselves that the referendum has a point.

bfginger

1268 posts

Uber Geek

#940193 25-Nov-2013 11:32

A victory for the "Yes" vote may make them cocky enough to promise more privatisations after the next election. Which could lose them the election. So I don't see why anybody would vote "Yes".

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#940250 25-Nov-2013 12:22

bfginger: A victory for the "Yes" vote may make them cocky enough to promise more privatisations after the next election. Which could lose them the election. So I don't see why anybody would vote "Yes".

Even if the result was a overwhelming 'NO', they would just argue that all the 'YES' people didn't bother voting because they 'already voted for asset sales at the General Election', or some other spin.

This was never a good idea, and the proof is in the pudding.

Cost are a multiple of what they were supposed to be and capital raised a fraction of what it was supposed to be. That coupled with foregone dividends and this is a total ****up.

I've said this before and I will say it again. I am sick of governments crying 'MANDATE' for all of their unpopular policies just because they got enough votes to win power. Just because you vote for a party, doesn't mean that you endorse every one of their policies (even their major ones). All it means is that, on balance, you liked them better (or think they will do a better job) than all the others.

Right now in Australia, Tony Abbot is crying MANDATE on three of his key election policies - 'Direct Action for Climate Change', Asylum Seekers and the Mining Tax. According to polling, Direct Action is suppoered by only 12% of voters, 50% of votes OPPOSE his Asylum seeker policy and 47% of people don't want the Mining Tax scrapped (46% do).

There was also strong opposition to his paid parental leave scheme (even within his own ranks), yet he claims 'mandate' on that too.

Twitter: ajobbins

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#940259 25-Nov-2013 12:32

greens are against everything by default.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940262 25-Nov-2013 12:36

surfisup1000: greens are against everything by default.

The Green Party is part of the opposition, it is their role in Westminster Parliaments to voice the opposing point of view ensuring effective debate.

trig42

5814 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#940299 25-Nov-2013 13:02

KiwiNZ:
surfisup1000: greens are against everything by default.

The Green Party is part of the opposition, it is their role in Westminster Parliaments to voice the opposing point of view ensuring effective debate.

That's true, and they do it well.
In fact, I'd wager that if the Government came out today banning deep sea oil exploration, the Greens would find some way of opposing it and calling the Government evil. (Only partly sarcastic).

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#940300 25-Nov-2013 13:03

KiwiNZ:
surfisup1000: greens are against everything by default.

The Green Party is part of the opposition, it is their role in Westminster Parliaments to voice the opposing point of view ensuring effective debate.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics.

Surely, the politicians, whichever party they represent, should be looking at what is best for the country, instead of simply opposing ideas 'because they are in opposition'...?

Because. let's face it, both left and right leaning governments have managed to come up with similar numbers of good and bad decisions, because the decisions are based on what there party would expect them to support.....

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940306 25-Nov-2013 13:08

MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
surfisup1000: greens are against everything by default.

The Green Party is part of the opposition, it is their role in Westminster Parliaments to voice the opposing point of view ensuring effective debate.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics.

Surely, the politicians, whichever party they represent, should be looking at what is best for the country, instead of simply opposing ideas 'because they are in opposition'...?

Because. let's face it, both left and right leaning governments have managed to come up with similar numbers of good and bad decisions, because the decisions are based on what there party would expect them to support.....

There has been a few examples recently when the parties have voted together.

What would you prefer that all the MP's just said yes sir and no debate? if so, dispense with the farce of democracy and have a dictatorship.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#940334 25-Nov-2013 13:32

KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
surfisup1000: greens are against everything by default.

The Green Party is part of the opposition, it is their role in Westminster Parliaments to voice the opposing point of view ensuring effective debate.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics.

Surely, the politicians, whichever party they represent, should be looking at what is best for the country, instead of simply opposing ideas 'because they are in opposition'...?

Because. let's face it, both left and right leaning governments have managed to come up with similar numbers of good and bad decisions, because the decisions are based on what there party would expect them to support.....

There has been a few examples recently when the parties have voted together.

What would you prefer that all the MP's just said yes sir and no debate? if so, dispense with the farce of democracy and have a dictatorship.

The only example I can think of where the politicians voted together was for the same sex marriage issue, do you have other examples?

As for dispensing with the farce of democracy, is that not what you advocate by supporting a referendum on a topic that was heavily publicised during the election campaigning that National did prior to being voted in to power last time?

Due diligence yes, debate for the sake of political point scoring, no.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940338 25-Nov-2013 13:36

MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
surfisup1000: greens are against everything by default.

The Green Party is part of the opposition, it is their role in Westminster Parliaments to voice the opposing point of view ensuring effective debate.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics.

Surely, the politicians, whichever party they represent, should be looking at what is best for the country, instead of simply opposing ideas 'because they are in opposition'...?

Because. let's face it, both left and right leaning governments have managed to come up with similar numbers of good and bad decisions, because the decisions are based on what there party would expect them to support.....

There has been a few examples recently when the parties have voted together.

What would you prefer that all the MP's just said yes sir and no debate? if so, dispense with the farce of democracy and have a dictatorship.

The only example I can think of where the politicians voted together was for the same sex marriage issue, do you have other examples?

As for dispensing with the farce of democracy, is that not what you advocate by supporting a referendum on a topic that was heavily publicised during the election campaigning that National did prior to being voted in to power last time?

Due diligence yes, debate for the sake of political point scoring, no.

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 12