General Election 2011

Who will you vote for?

  • Green

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ACT

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maori Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Unitede Future

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Progressive Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mana Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alliance

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservative Party of New Zealand

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NZ Democrats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kiwi Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Libertarianz

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • New Citizen Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • New Zealand First

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9

Jesbass_old

Guest
I'm giong to bail from this thread as soon as a flame war erupts...which largely depends on LG and NU going hammer and tong, but I'm quietly confident that won't happen. (I was actually thinking just yesterday about how quiet - peaceful, even - the forum has been compared to the last election year!)

I'm planning to vote blue this election, although I don't know who my candidate vote will go to. I haven't looked at the referendum options so I don't currently have an opinion on that.

I'm a bit confused at all this talk of asset sales - we're only selling a minority share, so we'll get both the short term benefit and the longer term benefit of increased competition and whatnot. The term "asset sales" suggests the selling of all or at least a majority share, which I find to be a dishonest implication.

I also oppose the suggested minimum wage increase because there are already too few jobs, and doing that will reduce the number further, and will likely result in a spike in unemployment due to companies being unable to afford to pay their workers the increased wage.

I'm heavily for the 90 day trial period, even though I'm about to step into one such period this coming Monday. Employees have been far too difficult to fire for employers. At least now, they'll be able to weed out the inept workers and get the best bang for their buck...as well as motivate workers to put in the hard yards, which is a good thing in my view. (I would also like to think that employers can not "fire people without giving a reason", lest they end up in employment court.)

And I'm extermely hesitant to label anyone a liar when there is no evidence of willful deceit. National definitely changed their stance on GST but at least they provided their reasoning behind it, and to be honest, it seemed reasonable enough. Labour have reversed their policies with no real explanation and at the last minute, which makes me worry that they might do the same if they were in power. It could be akin to having a loose cannon at the top, which is why I think Winston Peters is polling so badly after the natural (and maritime) disasters we've had of late.
 

numbnutsnz_old

Guest
I'm giong to bail from this thread as soon as a flame war erupts...which largely depends on LG and NU going hammer and tong, but I'm quietly confident that won't happen. (I was actually thinking just yesterday about how quiet - peaceful, even - the forum has been compared to the last election year!)

I'm planning to vote blue this election, although I don't know who my candidate vote will go to. I haven't looked at the referendum options so I don't currently have an opinion on that.

I'm a bit confused at all this talk of asset sales - we're only selling a minority share, so we'll get both the short term benefit and the longer term benefit of increased competition and whatnot. The term "asset sales" suggests the selling of all or at least a majority share, which I find to be a dishonest implication.

I also oppose the suggested minimum wage increase because there are already too few jobs, and doing that will reduce the number further, and will likely result in a spike in unemployment due to companies being unable to afford to pay their workers the increased wage.

I'm heavily for the 90 day trial period, even though I'm about to step into one such period this coming Monday. Employees have been far too difficult to fire for employers. At least now, they'll be able to weed out the inept workers and get the best bang for their buck...as well as motivate workers to put in the hard yards, which is a good thing in my view. (I would also like to think that employers can not "fire people without giving a reason", lest they end up in employment court.)

And I'm extermely hesitant to label anyone a liar when there is no evidence of willful deceit. National definitely changed their stance on GST but at least they provided their reasoning behind it, and to be honest, it seemed reasonable enough. Labour have reversed their policies with no real explanation and at the last minute, which makes me worry that they might do the same if they were in power. It could be akin to having a loose cannon at the top, which is why I think Winston Peters is polling so badly after the natural (and maritime) disasters we've had of late.

Jesbass for Prime Minister!!
 

danpatmac_old

Guest
And Labour increasing the minimum wage will only decrease your chances of finding a job. While some people will get the benefits of an extra few bucks an hour, others will suffer by losing their jobs with employers that just cant afford to pay someone $15.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/politics/58695.html

This is not necessarily true. In fact there is a large and compelling amount of evidence available that suggests the opposite.
 

Kat_old

Guest
This isnt a personal attack but how hard have you really tried for a job? I have a friend who moved back to Auckland 2 weeks ago and actively started looking for a job and now has 3. There are certainly people really trying but still have no luck finding a job, but theres also people that just write a cv and send it in and wait.

And Labour increasing the minimum wage will only decrease your chances of finding a job. While some people will get the benefits of an extra few bucks an hour, others will suffer by losing their jobs with employers that just cant afford to pay someone $15.

It still comes across personal but, I have tried very hard in my chosen profession tbh and living in a small town you can't compare to Auckland...The point I am trying to make is that the 90 day trial is a chance for employers to hire or take that chance on someone who hasn't got that plumped up cv but who is genuinely keen.

If people lose their job due to a wage increase...gives them a chance to up skill, get qualified and fill the high in demand jobs in the education, medical, protective service fields to name a few, which are widely advertised by immigration sites and filled by foreigners.

I can't understand why people would want to work for a low wage for a long time...

I am now retraining in another profession which is high in demand...that is how really hard I am looking for a job. FYI

Your mate is pretty lucky to have 3 jobs unlike some of mine, they either too old or over qualified...oh and please ask your mate to share their 3 jobs.
 

insulinboi_old

Guest
Im voting national. I live in the Epsom electorate tho so will give John Banks my candidate vote.
 

Est95_old

Guest
Im voting Labour, and always have. I used to live in Mt Roskill and I have met Phill Goff and he's a stand up guy, genuinely cares for working class people.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Im voting Labour, and always have. I used to live in Mt Roskill and I have met Phill Goff and he's a stand up guy, genuinely cares for working class people.

I have no doubt that this is true, and I got the same impression from Len Brown. But, given the opporunity, I wouldn't have voted for either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jesbass_old

Guest
Im voting national. I live in the Epsom electorate tho so will give John Banks my candidate vote.

Wow...so there's hope for the centre-right!

Regardless of one's leanings, I would have thought that anyone in the Epsom electorate who wanted National in power would give them their party vote, with their candidate vote going to Banks.

I had a great discussion about this on Facebook a few days ago by putting this status update:
"So I saw a spot survey on Campbell Live of 100 Epsom voters, and more than half of them said they'd vote for the National candidate. Eh? Paul Goldsmith is #39 on the list, so will get in anyway, so a vote for him seems like a waste of ink. Surely, if you wanted a centre-right government, you'd choose John Banks for your candidate vote, (and get two centre-right politicians for the price of one), and National for your party vote?"

I would have thought the same thing if it was for two left leaning parties. The poll result, (as small a sample it was and as unscientific as it was), knocked me sideways.
 

Est95_old

Guest
Wow...so there's hope for the centre-right!

Regardless of one's leanings, I would have thought that anyone in the Epsom electorate who wanted National in power would give them their party vote, with their candidate vote going to Banks.

I had a great discussion about this on Facebook a few days ago by putting this status update:
"So I saw a spot survey on Campbell Live of 100 Epsom voters, and more than half of them said they'd vote for the National candidate. Eh? Paul Goldsmith is #39 on the list, so will get in anyway, so a vote for him seems like a waste of ink. Surely, if you wanted a centre-right government, you'd choose John Banks for your candidate vote, (and get two centre-right politicians for the price of one), and National for your party vote?"

I would have thought the same thing if it was for two left leaning parties. The poll result, (as small a sample it was and as unscientific as it was), knocked me sideways.

I never really understood the Epsom electorate, are you voting for the MP to represent you in Parliament? Or does it not matter as (#39 Paul Goldsmith) will be in Parliament anyway so you vote for Banks to get both? What if you think John Banks is an idiot, do you still vote for him?
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Im voting national. I live in the Epsom electorate tho so will give John Banks my candidate vote.

Banks is a good rugby league man. Played 5 seasons of top level club league for Mt Albert back in the early 80's when the club standard in Auckland was close to what was in Sydney.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
I'm giong to bail from this thread as soon as a flame war erupts...which largely depends on LG and NU going hammer and tong, but I'm quietly confident that won't happen. (I was actually thinking just yesterday about how quiet - peaceful, even - the forum has been compared to the last election year!)

I'm planning to vote blue this election, although I don't know who my candidate vote will go to. I haven't looked at the referendum options so I don't currently have an opinion on that.

I'm a bit confused at all this talk of asset sales - we're only selling a minority share, so we'll get both the short term benefit and the longer term benefit of increased competition and whatnot. The term "asset sales" suggests the selling of all or at least a majority share, which I find to be a dishonest implication.

I also oppose the suggested minimum wage increase because there are already too few jobs, and doing that will reduce the number further, and will likely result in a spike in unemployment due to companies being unable to afford to pay their workers the increased wage.

I'm heavily for the 90 day trial period, even though I'm about to step into one such period this coming Monday. Employees have been far too difficult to fire for employers. At least now, they'll be able to weed out the inept workers and get the best bang for their buck...as well as motivate workers to put in the hard yards, which is a good thing in my view. (I would also like to think that employers can not "fire people without giving a reason", lest they end up in employment court.)

And I'm extermely hesitant to label anyone a liar when there is no evidence of willful deceit. National definitely changed their stance on GST but at least they provided their reasoning behind it, and to be honest, it seemed reasonable enough. Labour have reversed their policies with no real explanation and at the last minute, which makes me worry that they might do the same if they were in power. It could be akin to having a loose cannon at the top, which is why I think Winston Peters is polling so badly after the natural (and maritime) disasters we've had of late.

That lefty union loving toof hasn't been sighted since the RWC final. Is he still hung over? I love LG even if he is calling me a Maori/lesbian hating right winger :D
 

Est95_old

Guest
Banks is a good rugby league man. Played 5 seasons of top level club league for Mt Albert back in the early 80's when the club standard in Auckland was close to what was in Sydney.

Yeah he's always backed League, Im sure he was wanting Upgrade Carlaw Park and keep it as a top league ground.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
I never really understood the Epsom electorate, are you voting for the MP to represent you in Parliament? Or does it not matter as (#39 Paul Goldsmith) will be in Parliament anyway so you vote for Banks to get both? What if you think John Banks is an idiot, do you still vote for him?

Yeah, basically the way it works is that whoever wins the individual electorate gets a seat in parliament, so if Banks wins the electorate he's in. But Goldsmith will get in on the back of the National party vote, (assuming they get at least 32.3% of the vote), so voting for him under the candidate vote is a redundant vote.

By voting in Banks, they get both Banks and Goldsmith, (and a bit of ACT), into parliament, which makes sense as they all lean in a similar direction.

And yes, you vote for whoever you think will do the best job, regardless of what you think of them as a person. The election shouldn't be a popularity contest.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Which means that if Labour REALLY wants to stuff up National in Epsom they should vote for National as there party vote thus pushing ACT out the backdoor with Goldsmith winning.
Interestingly enough Goldsmith recently wrote Banks biography for him.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Which means that if Labour REALLY wants to stuff up National in Epsom they should vote for National as there party vote thus pushing ACT out the backdoor with Goldsmith winning.
Interestingly enough Goldsmith recently wrote Banks biography for him.

...except that won't stuff up National, but just give them an even bigger individual majority. (And I think you meant candidate vote?)
 

Northern_Union

Guest
No party vote for National from Labour supports will get Goldsmith in but more importantly knock over one of Nationals coalition partners. Goldsmith is going to get into parliment anyway due to his list ranking so by Labour voters in Epsom voting national they'll pretty much cancel there own vote out BUT will kill Banks and ACT and kill ACT as a party.
 

mrblonde_old

Guest
As I'm in the Pakuranga electorate the choices are:
M Williamson.
Hasbeen/noname from Labour
Hasbeen/noname from Greens
Etc
EtC

But I think Williamson's had hss time so may voite for someone else. Watch his majority slip by 1. IT WAS ME!!!

Party vote:Nat. Referendum: MMP or STV.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
MMP is to much of the tail wagging the dog for my liking. STV maybe the way to go.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
21 22 23
Replies
449
Views
22K
PB_old
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
The 22 BEAST_old
Replies
2K
Views
62K
Ryan_old