election 2008

[Spink]

What ever happened with all the carbon credits being stolen by the government for zero compensation and the disincentive to build further forestry?

All I could find was this, which is basically Labour saying we're sitting on our thumbs til the election even though we promised it last year and hurting the nz economy even more? D:

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Fitz

Comparing carbon tax to human rights is fucking stupid btw.

Well no, it isn't really - they're both made up concepts which people seem to think will solve the problems of the world... [cue Tui ad]

Pixie

[SID|DensitY]

well I found this funny

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10531801

Like most of the MP's, Ruth Dyson seems to be living on another planet. The current youth justice system, isn't working well and frankly the justice system in general is a joke. I like the idea of bootcamps.


Multigeneration dole bludging chuckle heads can go get fucked too in my books.

[Lightspeed]

What does a working youth justice system look like to you?

[SID|DensitY]

Naturally you have to tackle the problem before it becomes one. Installing responsibility and strong discipline vs rights on kids. Once a crime is done frankly depending on the crime there is multiple ways to handle it. Murder in my books shouldn't be see differently as an adult commiting it. Alot of the problem is the kids are never told no, disciplined and know their responsibilities in the community or even in their homes.

[Lightspeed]

I think you'll find youth offenders predominantly, perhaps almost exclusively, come from traumatic childhoods, rather than homes where discipline wasn't a priority.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think you'll find youth offenders predominantly, perhaps almost exclusively, come from traumatic childhoods, rather than homes where discipline wasn't a priority.

I'd say it depends on the offence.
a shiv stabbing = traumatic childhood
petty larceny = someone with no respect for other peoples property = always got away with it = poor discipline

[Lightspeed]

That's true in a sense, although the difference is probably in the degree of trauma. And trauma doesn't just mean being beaten, left unfed, etc. Having clean clothes, sufficient food and a violence free household, but a cold and depressed mother can also be quite traumatic for a young child.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by SID|DensitY

...and know their responsibilities in the community or even in their homes.

So what exactly is your "responsibility in the community"? And certainly an individuals "responsibility in their home" will vary depending on the home and the values they hold?

The idea that there is one socially cohesive "morality" which needs to be imposed on people (outside of our series of laws) seems somewhat obsolete these days.

Pixie

[SID|DensitY]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

So what exactly is your "responsibility in the community"? And certainly an individuals "responsibility in their home" will vary depending on the home and the values they hold?

The idea that there is one socially cohesive "morality" which needs to be imposed on people (outside of our series of laws) seems somewhat obsolete these days.

Pixie

I agree in your responsibilities in the home does vary, and because of the make up of our population, general concense on this would be hard.

in the community I see as blindly easy (maybe I'm taking too much of a simplistic view of the problem, meh). responsibility in the community would be that you ensure that you and others uphold the law of the land and interests of the community. This does mean being nosiy but yeah.

[Rince]

possible election date announcement: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4690355a6160.html

[JP]

Nothing is going to really effectively reduce youth crime until the poverty/education issue is resolved. 'Boot camps' or whatever other nonsense idea people have come up maybe help a little (or not at all), but are far from an effective long term solution. However the people who most have a problem with 'out of control youth' or whatever, are likely to feel National will be more likely to resolve this. Even though they will increase poverty and decrease social spending, likely increasing the problem far beyond any gain that will be made by their 'bootcamps', and certainly the negligble gains you get from harsher penalties.

Poverty is overwhelmingly the reason I will probably never vote right wing no matter how 'nanny state' labour is. Smacking bill etc is so small an issue compared with poverty. Most of modern societies issues come down to lower income areas/people. The right only make that problem worse.

I can totally understand someone feeling that people should look after themselves, get educated, get a job etc. For sure they should. But you have to look past that, because it's not happening. If people worked that way in the first place, we wouldn't even have those issues, nor the enviroment issues we face, or any of the other bullshit humans put each other through. The fact is, you take 100 people, put them in a situation. X amount are going to come out a certain way. Regardless of how they should act. That's the way you have to view the issue.

Poverty is inherited. Intervention in the next generation is essential, and the only thing that will come close to resolving the issue. Someone much smarter (and better paid) than me can (and do) figure out how to intervene. It's a diffciult problem that every society in history has faced, it will take generations and a lot of effort to resolve.

It will not be resolved through simple things such as harsher penalties and boot camps (boot camps is far more likely to help than harsher penalties though). Decreasing social spending is only going to make the problem worse.

I'll live if the wealthy (including myself) feel they're being over taxed. There are more significant issues currently facing us.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by SID|DensitY

I agree in your responsibilities in the home does vary, and because of the make up of our population, general concense on this would be hard.

Personally I'd say that it was impossible and also unrealistic too boot...

Originally Posted by SID|DensitY

in the community I see as blindly easy (maybe I'm taking too much of a simplistic view of the problem, meh). responsibility in the community would be that you ensure that you and others uphold the law of the land and interests of the community. This does mean being nosiy but yeah.

Sorry but I don't buy that at all - certainly not upholding the law (thats the police's job). Obviously individuals should abide by those laws which apply to them, but beyond that I don't really see that it's an individuals responsibility to try and uphold any of the laws.

As far as responsibility to the community, in regards to it interests, who decides whats in a communities best interests? And how do you define a community? And why should an individual even care about it so long as their actions are legal and allowed by society?

The idea of responsibility to a community seems somewhat outdated in this day and age where physical association with a specific area no longer defines the totality of the communities which an individual may be involved in. Certainly people may decide that they wish to do whats best for their respective community but there isn't some implied moral code which compels people to do so - and neither should people who opt to not be part of a particular community be penalised for their decision not to be involved (so long as they are abiding by the laws of the land).

The ideas you have brought forward seem to harken back to the 1950's and 60's and have almost no relevance (in context) with our society today. Of course this is all just my opinion.

Pixie

[ZoSo]

"It's an election about trust *wank* *wank* *wank*... November 8th..."

[Mickey]

General Election date is the 8th November. A very orange looking Helen just delivered a long drawn out speech about it.

Sheesh ZoSo, were you humping her to get it that quick.

[BadNova]

Marked it in my diary. Start cleaning your desk Helen.

[Lightspeed]

Yes, start cleaning your desk Helen. You'll have a lot of work to do this coming term and you'll need the space.

[funnel web]

This election is about trust.....fucking hilarious Helen.

[Saladin]

If trust is an important election issue for you then you're pretty much screwed, as no matter who you vote for, a politician wins :P

I've said before that only the Greens and Act can really be trusted to stick to their core policies and beliefs, but neither of them has ever been tested with any real power either so you never know.

[Lightspeed]

You know if the Greens did get real power, they'd legalise weed. We don't want that.

[Hory]

Voting for a principled third party is the only real option imo.
Labour are arrogant, out of touch and corrupt, but unfortunately National is comprised of MPs who were arrogant, out of touch and corrupt 9 nine years ago, led by an inexperienced Steve Carrell from 'The Office' who half-expects to get shafted by Bill English mid-term.

Third parties that are based on principles i.e ACT or Green make far more honest and transparent coalition partners than scumbags like Winston and Peter Dunne. You may disagree with ACT/Green but you know where they stand on issues. With Nat/Lab it's a case of what the last focus group told them to say to get elected. e.g National now support interest-free Student Loans and Labour now support tax cuts and using private capital to build roads after they were against them.

[Lightspeed]

Right... but that's how democracy works. The party that supports the will of the people gets voted in.

How it shouldn't work is the party that sways the will off the people getting voted in. I.e. the US election system.

[SID|DensitY]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Sorry but I don't buy that at all - certainly not upholding the law (thats the police's job). Obviously individuals should abide by those laws which apply to them, but beyond that I don't really see that it's an individuals responsibility to try and uphold any of the laws.

As far as responsibility to the community, in regards to it interests, who decides whats in a communities best interests? And how do you define a community? And why should an individual even care about it so long as their actions are legal and allowed by society?

Yes it is the police's job, however its a job that needs cooperation and at times help from communities. Of course its risky for random people to go around arresting people (bad idea), however I see it as a logical step to watch out for one another and offer help when needed. How many crimes have happened because people turned a blind eye because it was the "police's job" ? Figures I'd love to see thats for sure. Do you think we're doing enough now to help the police?

The idea of responsibility to a community seems somewhat outdated in this day and age....*Snip*...The ideas you have brought forward seem to harken back to the 1950's and 60's and have almost no relevance (in context) with our society today.

This day and age seems to be focused about caring about nothing other then number 1. when something bad happens we blame something else (govt or police or Media). I've _always_ been told how it was safe to leave doors open, play late at night with less worries then today I offen wonder why that was? was it because of our make up back then, or our mind set of responsibility? Clearly I can't answer that as I don't know, the world is different now like you say but should we at least aim to return to more caring times? is it now impossible?

Of course this is all just my opinion.

Pixie

This thread would be dull with we all didn't have one

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You know if the Greens did get real power, they'd legalise weed. I don't want that.

fixd

[BadNova]

I think he'd prefer legalised acid

[CCS]

Hey hey - Lightspeed doesn't need anymore acid, thank you very much!



Unless it works like in those movies, where you get hit on the head and lose your memory, get hit in the head again and regain your memory. Maybe if Lightspeed takes acid again...

[Sgt Seb]

interested in people's thoughts on this

"The World Bank's annual "Doing Business" report ranks 181 countries on how friendly their regulatory climate is to entrepreneurs."

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...smb/index.html

It only takes 24 hours to set up a business in New Zealand, the speediest start-up time in the world. Thanks to new reforms this year, entrepreneurs can now use a single online procedure to register for taxes at the same time as they incorporate their company.

The Kiwis also boast the fastest time in the world for registering property: it can be done online in two days, and is relatively cheap.

As in the U.S. and Hong Kong, hiring and firing is relatively easy to do in New Zealand, with no mandated penalties, notice or severance payments for fired workers.Borrowers and lenders in New Zealand enjoy relatively strong legal rights, while investors have some of the strongest legal protections in the world.

NZ is ranked as the second best country in the world for small businesses, by the world bank. Not bad for a socialist government eh?

[Jonas Undrawing]

fist pump!

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Right... but that's how democracy works. The party that supports the will of the people gets voted in.

How it shouldn't work is the party that sways the will off the people getting voted in. I.e. the US election system.

The US election system is a fucking joke. The public votes don't matter a single bit. The Electoral College delegates can vote for whoever they personally want in power, and it's their vote that counts. For them, it's just a guideline rather than a rule to vote for whoever the citizens vote for.

[Fitz]

Can someone make a poll (doesnt seem to be an option for one otherwise I would have done it myself) about which party people will be voting for in the upcoming election, make it an anonymous one. Just want to get an idea of where the bulk of NZGamers are aligned.

[buckies]

I second that idea but with the removal the anonymity clause. Even the smallest balls should be able to stand by their political opinion.

[Haydos]

Don't think we can make polls here.

But I'm quite happily admitting that I'm voting for John Key, not National, I believe there is a difference.

[Ab]

done

[Spink]

Originally Posted by buckies

I second that idea but with the removal the anonymity clause. Even the smallest balls should be able to stand by their political opinion.

with the way the labour fanatics on here thread stalk people and spam annoying trash - I'm pretty sure that alone is a reason for people to remain anonymous.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

done

Great jeeoorrb.

[IoriDyson]

if you fuck nuts believe that we need a change through national. then god help us.

[CCS]

Compelling argument! You have swayed my conscience and I give you my vote!

[A Corpse]

Tbfh, I don't know yet. If Helen sacks and disowns Winston I may give my electorate vote to whatever Labour pleb is running against the National incumbent, purely because nobody else has a chance at winning locally anyway.

Party vote, errm, leaning Green atm.

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

The US election system is a fucking joke. The public votes don't matter a single bit. The Electoral College delegates can vote for whoever they personally want in power, and it's their vote that counts. For them, it's just a guideline rather than a rule to vote for whoever the citizens vote for.

Technically true but I don't think there has been any recent election where the electoral college delegates have voted different to what the voter's wanted. Their role is basically symbolic.

[Cyberbob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

There's been a couple in recent years at least