election 2008

[Haydos]

The Nats have released policy.

http://www.national.org.nz/

They haven't released all of their policies, but why should they? They're polling ahead of Labour as is and the election date hasn't been set yet. Why not keep the policies internal, leak out the more questionable ones (as they have done) and then when it comes to the date, introduce the ones that they believe will be crowd pleasers to boost their polling higher.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Trevor Mallard has released Nats policy.

Fixed

[Wally Simmonds]

I understand why they're not releasing policy at this time, but one can't help but wonder the reason they're not releasing it is because they suspect the public won't be all too happy with it.

I think it's fairly clear unless John Key turns into Sarah Palin, people are going to vote for National just to vote Labour out.

[Mickey]

I think the whole leaking of policies makes Mallard look like a douche. For me it makes me think he lacks integrity. Not so sure that was the response he was going for.

[Wally Simmonds]

I suppose he's trying to show that the party isn't as solid as John Key likes to make out. Either they've got a leak or some stupid minister, either way I don't think it is a good look.

I honestly believe it's the latter. Certainly noticed there does seem to be quite a bit of incompetence in that building.

[Haydos]

Ok, lets just put an end to this whole "National haven't released any policy" nonsense, because it seems like it's the only attack anyone has at the moment.

Arts, Culture and Heritage Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28231

Broadcasting Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28180

Building and Construction Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28502

Broadband Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=12338

Community Groups/Charity Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=12095

2007 Foreign Affairs/Defense policy, soon to be updated following discussions
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=11174

Youth Guarantee Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28239

Trades in Schools Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28238

Early Childhood Care Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28202

Improving Childhood Health with Sport Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28149

Student Loan Policy
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28237

I could go on for hours... but obviously, no point, because National haven't released any policy what so ever and despite the majority of these policies being fit to 2008 issues, Labour, who haven't really had policy shift outside of Tax Cuts (which they were forced into) are in a much better state of forward thinking than National.

[Russian]

Those are fairly small fry policies. Where is the economic policy, which y'know, affects every single one of us. And no, Bill English going "we can do better" to Michael Cullen after the Budget does not count.

Bottom line, if National poll below 45ish, they will sink. That is unless they can successfully destroy NZF and pick up a large chunk of their vote, and even then it's still far from a sure thing.

I can imagine the HELEN IS A MAN LOL types will be screaming out for FPP in that case, but we all know what a clusterfuck that would be!

[Haydos]

Well, some of the basis points of their economic policy can be found in the formation of "small fry" policy.

Like I said before, why release the crowd pleasers when the election is not set?

[sidbo]

Originally Posted by Haydos

That's a definition of bugbear... there is more than one.

But nice to see you bought your trampoline with you.

Glad to see you managed to spell it correctly the second time.

[Haydos]

Oh, well thank you for editing my posts to make them even more informed and correct.

[Delphinus]

Haydos, so if the Greens are not fixing the world in the manner you like, which political party is doing it better? Ie not keeping their head in the sand?

[Haydos]

None.

Which is the frustrating thing at the moment.

[adonis]

For me, the thing about voting for the Green party is that I don't even have to agree with any of their policies in order to justify voting for them. Their mere presence in government forces every other party to look at improving their own environmental policies. National have to at least look like they're challenging the Greens on environmental issues, and the more support the Greens get, the wider the debate becomes. I don't disagree with them enough to overlook the greater effect of having them in government, regardless of who's actually in power.

[Delphinus]

Good point Adonis, while they are not the perfect solution, they are the least worst solution... If that makes sense.
In the interests of the future, I think they are the best bet.

[Farmer Joe]

The Green politicians actually behave themselves too. I'd even go as far as calling them.... honest?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Wally Simmonds

I think it's fairly clear unless John Key turns into Sarah Palin, people are going to vote for National just to vote Labour out.

Which is what we did in 1990. Nobody liked the neo-liberal policies that the Fourth Labour government was introducing so they voted in National to stop those policies and then National went even more radical on us than Labour.

National, so far, has only promised to be Labour Lite which, in context, probably means a return to the policies of the 1980s.

[Haydos]

Who are the key people in the Greens that you believe can drive change and improve living standards?

What are their key policies to do so?

It's one thing to say "They seem to keep their nose clean"

It's almost like voting for them because they're a weak, lukewarm cup of tea that won't burn your mouth.

[Hazmat]

Originally Posted by Haydos

It's one thing to say "They seem to keep their nose clean"

It's almost like voting for them because they're a weak, lukewarm cup of tea that won't burn your mouth.

Lesser of 2 evils and all that

[Haydos]

Yeah, it's what I figured, but I think people misunderestimate what the Green's actually want to do to New Zealand and vote for them because as you say, lesser of two evils, clear conscience... but realistically

Green's want to impose so many restrictions on trade and such that it's impossible for NZ to function under what they believe is a functional society.

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by Haydos

.. misunderestimate ...

Was that deliberate?

Be honest now...

[Haydos]

misunderstand/estimate combined.

[StN]

If only there was a word to describe that.

[Ab]

Holy shit, I agree with a Garth George column, it's the end times.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10531564

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Ab

Holy shit, I agree with a Garth George column, it's the end times.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10531564

good read

[funnel web]

Originally Posted by Ab

Holy shit, I agree with a Garth George column, it's the end times.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10531564

You're becoming an old coot like me. Young people will soon make fun of your ways and tell you that you smell of cabbage.

[JP]

Stopped reading after his retarded spew about global warming. If you don't understand it, fuck up about it. I can't even believe how so many fuckheads have convinced themselves that it's made up so some people could profit. Right, because there's so much more money and votes in trying to stop climate change than doing nothing.

I'd be embarassed to say I agree with a fuckstick like that cunt who was happy Bush got in simply cause he shared his 'christian values'. He can eat a dick. He should move to America.

[Saladin]

He seems a bit conflicted to me - his last complaint is the old "nanny state", yet in point 4 is is complaining about user pays :P

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by Haydos

misunderstand/estimate combined.

Thanks for clarificating that.

[SpaceCowboy]

Originally Posted by JP

Stopped reading after his retarded spew about global warming. If you don't understand it, fuck up about it. I can't even believe how so many fuckheads have convinced themselves that it's made up so some people could profit. Right, because there's so much more money and votes in trying to stop climate change than doing nothing.

I'd be embarassed to say I agree with a fuckstick like that cunt who was happy Bush got in simply cause he shared his 'christian values'. He can eat a dick. He should move to America.

agree.

[Ab]

So, you write off an entire collection of points because you disagree with one of them?

And more to the point, you avoid reading things that you don't agree with?

Wow.

[erentz]

Re: all this talk of crazy greenies

For most people I know who vote green (and by the looks a couple of people here), its recognized that there are some (fairly) extreme elements in the party. But its not about giving them outright control, its the influence they carry into any coalition that brings us things like better public transport instead of perpetual road building, actual debate on environmental issues, etc. Naturally extreme ideas are tempered by the dominant party and debate in the house anyway.

(What are some of the extreme things anyway? I'm thinking things like zero-waste targets, carbon taxes, etc. are actually kind of logical and don't need to be anti-economic if done right.)

And FWIW, there are plenty of extreme elements in the national party that would love to see free market economics, no social welfare, user pays health care and education, etc. etc. too. Its just the national party is less transparent than the greens.

[funnel web]

Originally Posted by JP

blah blah

So anyone with a differing point of view should just STFU? Wow thanks for the heads up.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by erentz

Re: all this talk of crazy greenies

For most people I know who vote green (and by the looks a couple of people here), its recognized that there are some (fairly) extreme elements in the party. But its not about giving them outright control, its the influence they carry into any coalition that brings us things like better public transport instead of perpetual road building, actual debate on environmental issues, etc. Naturally extreme ideas are tempered by the dominant party and debate in the house anyway.

Actually, the guy that Ab linked to would agree with you there (as do I)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/sto...ectid=10514389

[SpaceCowboy]

Originally Posted by Ab

So, you write off an entire collection of points because you disagree with one of them?

more that it shows that he doesnt really have a clue what hes writing about, so why bother reading the rest?

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by JP

I can't even believe how so many fuckheads have convinced themselves that it's made up so some people could profit. Right, because there's so much more money and votes in trying to stop climate change than doing nothing.

The climate is changing that's a given, but is it our responsibility as a country that creates fuck all pollution, to take a stance to look good, when this will only disadvantage our businesses further against countries like China.
It's not a good idea to lead the way when there is no need for us to, how about you vote green because you want to support an ideal, without really looking into the consequences of having your head fully up your own arse.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Fitz

The climate is changing that's a given, but is it our responsibility as a country that creates fuck all pollution, to take a stance to look good, when this will only disadvantage our businesses further against countries like China.
It's not a good idea to lead the way when there is no need for us to, how about you vote green because you want to support an ideal, without really looking into the consequences of having your head fully up your own arse.

Well basically, we can be part of the problem or the solution. That's about it. We can look at China and say why should we give people human rights? When it disadvantages our businesses. Why bother about the environment? Why not just be ruthless cunts like the Chinese? Because that's the difference between a good person (or in this case a country) and a selfish one. The idea of progress for progress' sake at all costs is a massively destructive one. I personally feel the sooner we tone that down a bit the better. And if you wait for the Chinese or whoever to do it first, you'll be waiting forever.

However...

Originally Posted by funnel web and all the other tards

So anyone with a differing point of view should just STFU? Wow thanks for the heads up.

Umm, no? Are you fucked in the brain? Yes, apparently you are. Which puts you in the same boat as Old George. So yes you can have the heads up, if you're a fucktard, I don't want to hear it. Never said anything about not wanting to hear people who have differing opinions. I very much do so. Just not when they're fucktarded. Like yours and his. Duh. This was so painfully obvious, that you'd have to be retarded to make the assumption you guys made.

Yes one point was enough to ignore the rest of his spew. I've read plenty of his opinions, and can recognise partisan spew when its as obvious as his. Was hoping possibly he'd come out with something good (as AB empahised his usual shit is trash, and was surprised this wasn't). However it was. It just happened to agree with the way AB felt. Trash that agrees with the way you feel is generally regarded as not trash because you're blinded. It happens to all of us.

But that was still trash. I don't blame you for feeling differently since it supports the opinions you already hold. I'm sure I do it to sometimes.

[JP]

Oh and don't take the harsh tone personally. It just grinds my gears when people think they're oh so clever making retarded retorts like the several that followed my post. They don't even have any viable logic, but you pat yourself on the back like you've burned me or something. Garrrrr.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by JP

Well basically, we can be part of the problem or the solution. That's about it. We can look at China and say why should we give people human rights? When it disadvantages our businesses. Why bother about the environment? Why not just be ruthless cunts like the Chinese? Because that's the difference between a good person (or in this case a country) and a selfish one. The idea of progress for progress' sake at all costs is a massively destructive one. I personally feel the sooner we tone that down a bit the better. And if you wait for the Chinese or whoever to do it first, you'll be waiting forever.

The issue is we are not part of the problem, Greens just think it strengthens their brand going on a crusade to supposedly save the world regardless of the economic consequences. Comparing carbon tax to human rights is fucking stupid btw.

[buckies]

I sense a flame war shall soon engulf this thread. I look forward to watching the victim(s) get burnt.

[Fitz]

wow you have psychic powers, now fuck off and go slice your wrists with tarot cards