Election Time...
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20858
Printed Date: 01 November 2024 at 2:33am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Election Time...
Posted By: minik8e
Subject: Election Time...
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 12:57pm
| Helen Clark has announced at a press conference today that the general election will be taking place on 8 November 2008. Going to be an interesting few months now. |
Replies:
Posted By: Roksana
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:07pm
Oh? My Mum's 50th on that day....I will be way too busy to vote!!  ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: aussiegirl
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:12pm
Yes, just saw the press conference. it will be interesting  -------------  Mum to Hayley **30.6.08
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:32pm
Ewww, I HATE the run up to an election 
Wish it had just been a snap election with no time for any of the campaigning bollocks that goes on! |
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:37pm
|
If they did that the campaigning bollocks would just start a lot earlier. -------------  
|
joshierocks wrote:Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:40pm
Oh. Yeah.... didn't think of it like that 
So are people going to be brave and share who they intend to vote for??? I'll show you mine....
|
Posted By: ohanlon82
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:40pm
|
should be interesting - DH is away that weekend he will have to vote up north ------------- http://lb2f.lilypie.com/TikiPic.php/RPaODBg.jpg |
Posted By: minik8e
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:14pm
| I was originally thinking National....now I'm really not sure. Def not NZ First though. |
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:18pm
|
I'm on the Maori Roll, and in the Tamaki Makaurau electorate, so my vote for candidate will definitely be going to Pita Sharples. In my opinion he is the most honourable man in NZ Politics.
Party vote will be Labour. |
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:30pm
|
Labour supporter here too. Actually I tend to swing between Labour and the Greens but at this stage I'm voting Labour. -------------
|
Posted By: Aprilfools
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:34pm
|
Um um um, I haven't decided yet.
I don't like all the campaigning much either but I did enjoy some of the debates held on Campbell and other shows last time. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Henna79
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:42pm
I'll be voting National and whoever their candidate is here, I can't remember who he is even though he came to our house 
|
Posted By: ohanlon82
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:50pm
|
Yip National here for me - candiadate aswell ------------- http://lb2f.lilypie.com/TikiPic.php/RPaODBg.jpg |
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:56pm
|
National for me ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Margs B
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 2:59pm
|
National Party here too. ------------- DS March 09 IVF Angel Baby Jan 13 |
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:02pm
|
Can I just ask.... and I'm not asking to cause yucky arguments, but those who are thinking of voting National, is it because you like John Key (cos we don't know too much around thier policies just yet), or is it because you are over Labour?
I had an interesting discussion with a friend around this the other night, and I just wondered what others were feeling round this. |
Posted By: baalamb
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:02pm
Ditto! Helen's speech today was very persuading. I have to admit though, I don't know much about any of the parties really. Politics bores me senseless, but I'm finding that this year, I want to make an informed decision rather than just ticking a box. |
Posted By: Zina
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:05pm
I agree. I have never really been a huge Labour fan. I really think they have had their run. However, in saying that National really don't seem to have offered much of an alternative as far as policies go. I think the next few months shall be interesting. |
Posted By: ohanlon82
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:13pm
|
i agree have not heard much about National policies at the moment. Will be interesting to hear what happens now
I just am sick on Labour and Helen Clark - i will get no relief from any of there policies bar the tax relief one.. but in saying that will have to wait and see what the other parties have to offer I just think it might be time for a change. Dont mind John Keyes either ------------- http://lb2f.lilypie.com/TikiPic.php/RPaODBg.jpg |
Posted By: Mum2L
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:27pm
|
ohanlon82 - I am doing a research paper as part of my honours on political parties, and the National Party does not have a good track record in terms of spending in public services. Even though I critique Labour as well, I just don't support National one bit. Just remember many people on this forum rely on the Working For Families package and accommodation supplements. Labour had the guts to increase income threshold levels for such social security payments.
John Key is a charismatic politician, but he is also an inexperienced politician. He is controlled by a team of advisers. Well known fact in politicial circles. Also remember that the leadership of the National Party is very unstable. They have gone through 4 leaders since 1996, and John Key is the 5th leader in that time. Labour has had the same leader in that period of time. Sure Labour have had their mistakes, but studies have shown that people are more likely to criticise an organisation led by a female (a reason example is Theresa Gattung, who use to be the CEO of Telecom). The reason why National are keeping policies to themselves at the moment, is because they know a lot of voters who have families are not going to like them. Scrapping things like ACC is a bad move, as it will make it harder for people to get treatment for work-related injuries. Even an accountantcy firm like PriceWarehouseCoopers (who are known to support conservative parties like National) said that privatising ACC is the worst thing to do, as the model in place is the most efficient in terms of levies charged, how claims are treated, and the financial structure. Insurance companies are only interested in profits, not the welfare of the person who has been injured. So anyone who is going to vote National should rethink their decision, and start researching the policies of all political parties. I am not saying you should Labour, but make a researched decision when you go to the polling booth. The media distort the truth. Any media you do read or hear always has a politicial bias in it. For example, The Dominion Post is known to have a centre-right bias in its political articles. Personally myself, I am giving my electorate vote to the Labour candidate and my party vote to the Greens. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: ohanlon82
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:32pm
|
Thanks for info Denise - will take it all into account when i vote ------------- http://lb2f.lilypie.com/TikiPic.php/RPaODBg.jpg |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 3:57pm
|
Well as the wife of someone in the Airforce, Labour are not our friends. Helen Clark's decision to scrap the skyhawks cost my husband 4 years of his career.
I live in the Rangitikei district which is provincial farming with Simon Power as our MP, he's high on the list and does a great job and will get my vote again, no idea who the other candidates are, and they seem to change with each election. I want to see what National's policies are before deciding. Choice will be between them or Labour anything else is a waste of a vote. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: caraMel
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:22pm
|
I'm biding my time to see what National have got up their sleeves to sway the voters but at this stage Labour is looking like the best option for us.
I'm not sure why, but John Key just gives me the heebie jeebies. He seems untrustworthy to me for some reason. I'm much more inclined to trust Helen. She seems more genuine to me. ------------- Mel, Mummy to E: 6, B: 4 and: 
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:23pm
|
National can take a jump, I don't really like Helen Clark but I'll take her over National being in power!
National just screw thing up then everyone gets all pissy about it so Labour gets voted back in and spends its time fixing up what National has done |
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:23pm
Because you're opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong? ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:27pm
|
I don't think thats what she meant. National have kept close soooooo many of their policies and their stance on things. I think she was trying to point out its smart to make an informed decision which is difficult to do with National when they don't let out much
|
Posted By: Mum2L
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:30pm
I never said my opinion is right
All I am saying is that people should make an informed decision. Just voting in a party for change isn't really an informed decision, because the 'change' could not be what people are expecting or want. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:36pm
I couldn't agree more! lady_aset - are you doing HONS at Vic? I just finished INTP hons last year. Admittedly I didn't do much NZ pols in my degree (mostly at Otago) but did do a few pols papers in my undergrad year at Vic. |
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:51pm
I've been following everything closely as I love politics and I will be giving my party vote to labour, not sure of the other vote, maybe Jim Anderton as we're in his electorate and he's a top-notch fella 
My main concerns: National govt's are notorious for selling off public assets and privatising. Basically, this is bad for lower-income people and good for higher-income people. National voters are typically white, middle-class males (farmers, self-employed, managers etc) who benefit from their policies. I also don't like the instability and the fact we don't know many (if any lol) policies yet. I also hate the way that John Key answers things with 'under National people will be better off' but doesn't elaborate. I don't trust the man to represent me as a NZ'er, nor have I trusted the last 2 before him either. I liked Jenny Shipley but the others lately seems like prats. My Dh's job is better under Labour as is mine (when I go back to work). My son will be more supported seeing as we are a low-middle income family. And finally - I figure better the devil you know. Remember - no matter who the govt is at the moment, it is NOT their fault that the cost of petrol, food, houses etc has gone up. I'm so sick of people blaming the govt for this when its a worldwide issue. Even the correspondents on the news do it
So anyway I will be voting Labour. When a party comes along with better policies for me, the country and what I believe in, I will change my vote. Until then I'm sticking with the one that has done well by me for the past few years. BTW I love elections because if you vote, you can complain  If you don't get out and vote, shut up! (to general population, not anyone in particular )
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 4:56pm
| Oh Ems, when you said "John Key answers things with 'under National people will be better off' but doesn't elaborate" that reminded me of how much I hate him. He does say that ALL the time. The other thing that annoys me about him is that how in the hell does he know what a 'normal' NZer faces in every day life when he's one of the richest people in the country? |
Posted By: Febgirl
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 5:13pm
|
I think I'll be giving my party vote to Green, which I have done since I started voting! Even though I don't agree with all of their policies, I think it's good to have a voice of conscience in parliament which is what I believe Greens offer - by getting over the 5% threshold they have been able to influence a lot of the recent legislative changes. I don't see all that much difference between National and Labour anymore.
Oh, and I really should be voting National or Act - DH and I are both in the top income bracket, we are light years away from ever qualifying for WFF etc and apparently everyone like us wants tax cuts as their priority
|
Posted By: susieq
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 5:21pm
|
I am going National as i think Helen knows alot more about this thing with Winston than she lets on and she really should do something with him if he he has done wrong
Labour have done some shoddy things too I dont think national are that bad |
Posted By: susieq
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 5:23pm
| I also think time for a change of government and I actually quite like John Keys |
Posted By: Natalie_G
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 6:03pm
|
Aunty Helen has been in for long enough, time for change.
National will be having my tick I mean she didnt sack old Winny because she needed his party votes for the Emissions (sp) Trading Scheme, you want that sort of person running the country when she has sacked others for a lot less. ------------- http://lilypie.com">  
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 6:15pm
| Do you really think national would have sacked him if they were trying to pass some important legislation and needed his backing.. I think not. |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 7:57pm
| I am trying at the moment to figure out if I hate national cause I really do, or if a lot is based on that my family is a labour family... |
Posted By: jaycee
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 8:24pm
|
John Key hasn't always been a rich man - he comes from a single parent home and grew up in a state house.
I did politics and IR at Vic too but always focused on international stuff - I am already feeling very over the election . I am increasingly finding that NZ politics is just mud slinging and cheep shots - worse than watching a toddlers playgroup  -------------   
|
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 8:26pm
OMG for the first time ever, I agree with everything you are saying, Emz!!!!! WOOOOT!!!!! I'm waving the red flag, and always will, probably. John Key may have grown up in a state house, but he has lived in wealth for sooo long he probably dosen't rmember what its like to be poor and screwed over by a national government. He seems slimy. Although I don't think aunty helen has done herself any favours over the whole winston saga... ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 8:27pm
|
At least it doens't go on as long as it takes them to figure out the canditates in america
|
Posted By: jaycee
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 8:33pm
|
you are right kebakat - the American eliction is crazy. I did a paper in American politics and they have about the most convoluted system ever. 99% of Americans have very little idea how it works. -------------
|
Posted By: Jennz
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 9:20pm
|
Oooo exciting! I love debating politics
I personally think National will get voted in because alot of people just want change for changes sake  Then of course they'll totally screw the country over just like they always do and we'll all go crying back to Labour to fix everything We never learn from our history and just wind up making the same mistakes over and over.
I think politics from other countries can teach us alot. Republican/Tories/National all favour the rich, corporates and privatisation. The gap between the rich and poor gets bigger and bigger. Plus National will be in Americas pocket- and with things going the way they are, thats not a position I would want the country to be in. For the same reasons as Febgirl, I'll be voting Green ------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3 
|
Posted By: ChundaMars
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:07pm
There's a simple reason for that - Nats have been in opposition, and when they don't win the election they ditch the leader and try someone new, whereas HC has stayed in charge because Labour has stayed in charge. Don't think you can read too much into that one - you reckon if Labour loses they won't ditch HC before the next election? You bet your ass they will!
|
Posted By: ChundaMars
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:09pm
What studies? And Telecom is not a good example - I think it's a pretty safe bet Telecom gets alot of cricism because its an enormous, greedy monopoly that is holding the country back and (more importantly) has terrible, terrible customer service, not because there was a women in charge for a few years! Ha ha ha You think people will go easy on Telecom now because Gattung is gone? Doubt it!
|
Posted By: kakapo
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:14pm
|
That's the thing about MMP that I just don't get. Why does everyone believe that voting for a party that isn't National or Labour is a "waste of a vote"? Sorry for quoting you Fleury, I'm not having a dig at you honestly ... I'm just genuinely curious. I'd really like to know - why do most people seem to feel they must vote for either National or Labour, and not even consider the other parties? Wonder what would happen if everyone truly believed that a vote for any party was meaningful? As for me, its Green all the way baby |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:14pm
|
I shall be voting labour, if it ain't broke don't try to fix it. Sure they have made a few mistakes, but do you really want John Key in charge? Personally I wouldn't trust him to take my dog for a walk let alone run a country.
They will not help the average family and that will screw up the whole country including those on higher incomes (in the end when the whole country comes crashing to its knees, just in time for labour to be voted back in to clean up). In the short term we would actually be better off under national as we don't qualify for any assistance from WFF etc but I can look long term, my tax cut won't do me much good when I have remortgage my house just to take my child to the doctors. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: ChundaMars
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:20pm
|
I'd consider voting for a smaller party - in fact I have done in the past. It's tricky though, because I find most of the smaller parties have a more "radical" plan for the nation and you don't actually want them to have too much power!
Funny thing is, I'd probably go for the Maori party if I had to pick a small party - love that man Pita Sharples
|
Posted By: kakapo
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:38pm
|
Hehe, I actually gave them my party vote last election as I was so steamed at Labour over the whole Foreshore and Seabed saga. |
Posted By: ChundaMars
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:44pm
| Yeah, funny thing for me is, I haven't got any Maori blood in me at all! At least, not as far as I know... would be a long, long way back if there was |
Posted By: kakapo
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:47pm
|
Yep same here, I just felt really pissed off about the whole ordeal and voting for them made me feel a little bit better for some reason? |
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 10:55pm
|
Minor parties - totally!
If it was a case of a majority govt then maybe not soooo much but the chances of that happening are slim to none so the smaller parties actually have quite a lot of clout as they use legislation as leverage when coalition bargaining. I'm not exactly sure who I'm going to vote for yet but definitely lefty left left.
|
Posted By: ChundaMars
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 11:03pm
| I'll be voting National I think, but I won't make my mind up until closer to the time. 8 weeks to go! |
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 11:43pm
|
...and then Labour will spend the next few terms cleaning up and getting the country back into a fairly reasonable, even healthy, position and people who don't care much about finding out about particular policies but do feel "it's time for a change" and are conned by a charismatic sleaze ball of a leader will vote National back in and the whole sorry saga begins again.... IMHO.
I'm like you cuppatea, we don't qualify for any financial help at all under Labour but I'm not naive enough to believe that the world economic issues (such as food and petrol prices) are due to our government, I don't believe in change for the sake of change and as my husband says it's better the idiot you know than the idiot you don't plus I've been around long enough to remember what government was like under National.
Furthermore the local candidate for National did a survey several months ago which I completed and returned. One of the boxes I ticked read "would you like to hear about our policies" naturally I ticked yes and yet she's never contacted me back. There was also a space for comments which I added, asking for a response and I've never received one. I wasn't going to vote National anyway but had I been considering it I would have changed my mind as that's just plain rude! Why ask opinions and offer to discuss policies if you don't actually mean to? -------------
|
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 8:06am
|
Oooh, yay I am so pleased there are so many politically opinionated people on Oh Baby!
Personally, I am with a lot of you - I cannot abide John Key. He makes a lot of noise, but essentially says NOTHING. His main campainging tactic seems to me to be to refute everything Labour says, and say that National will do things differently. Um, and what might that be John????? Oh right, not willing to disclose that just now. How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeenient I will probably cry if National gets voted in.
We are in the higher income bracket, and don't qualify for anything in the way of assistance. But a few years ago when we were incredibly poor (DP made redundant 5 days before Joshua was born) the money we received from WFF and Accommodation Supplement actually saved us. Literally. I will be forever grateful that because we have a government who take care of the lower income people in our country, my son was able to have food. And a roof over his head. I firmly believe that Helen Clark has been the best leader this country could have asked for. While she has made some errors of judgement (yep, Winny), she has consistenly acted with honour, dignity and strength. She was brave enough to keep us out of the "War on Terror", risking all kinds of wrath of the bullying American kind, in order to maintain our principles and values as a nation. And she totally made the right call. Whereas National categorically stated they would have sent troops and allied us to the US. For that, and for so many other reasons, Helen Clark has my full support. It will be a sad day indeed if John Key becomes our next leader. He has no idea who we are as a nation. He came back to NZ, ousted a longstanding politician in his electorate, bullied his way to the top, and now stands before us asking to be taken seriously. A man who has been in politics for only FOUR years running our country???? I sincerely hope not. |
Posted By: minik8e
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 8:16am
| Helen Clark irks me, particularly with regard to this Winston Peters issue. But then, I don't like John Key either - he comes across as a smug pr*k - always has this smirk on his face while giving obtuse answers to questions. If Labour had another leader, I would be more inclined to vote for them, as I appreciate what they have done - I just think Helen Clark's actions don't fit. As for National, I want to see their policies. One thing I KNOW I don't want, is WFF to be canned. As regards the privatisation of ACC....on one hand, I know it would be a disaster but on the other hand, it would be good for me (selfish view) - as I work for an insurance company and it would result in increased work opportunities and pay. Most of the people in my office think the same way. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 9:08am
|
I actually preferred Don Brash over John Key, shame he's not the leader anymore.
The reason I think giving your party vote to a minor party particularly in this election, is cause if they don't get over the 5% theshold they wont get in. The Maori party got in on winning their electorates not on the party vote, same with ACT, United Future and The Progressives, that's how you get the minor parties in. I'm a bit anti-green after Sue Bradford's anti-smaking bill. Nobody voted for her, yet she was able to introduce legislation which has turned every parent into a criminal for physically disciplining their child. Its not that I support smaking, I just don't think its criminal. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Jennz
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 9:25am
|
A few of the policies National has released are that they will be selling Kiwibank, taking the cap off what GPs can charge (which will mean sky rocketing doctors bills), privatising ACC and getting rid of WFF. Hmmmm Oh and tax cuts- gotta have the good ol' one trick pony National tax cut in there
------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 9:38am
|
Privatising ACC has been done before and didn't work can't see that being a good thing.
I have issues with the principle of WFF, we don't qualify so don't get the money anyway. DH and I are not on big incomes, we're in the middle, but combined we don't get it. I have issues about being paid a benefit for having children, its only encouraged families to have more children that they can't afford to care for in order to get more WFF. As for GPs charges, that's a tough one, cause GPs have to make a living the same as everyone else, and many are leaving the country and / or the profession cause they aren't able to sustain a living. Community services card covers those on low incomes, and children are subsidised. But I don't see why adults should be subsidised at the Dr's, you have to pay full price at the Dentist and other health professionals. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: minik8e
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 10:17am
|
Maybe because for some people, paying full price and trying to fit it into a medium level of income, could result in sicker people (because they don't have the money to go to the doctor) who then need to be hospitalised which costs more money then subsidising the visits in the first place. That's my take on it anyway.
You are right that they need to make a living as well, but for an unsubsidised visit that is in excess of $60 for a 15 minute consultation.....that's a LOT of money. Add on prescription charges and it can end up being $100 or more - that's a lot of money to find. My doc is subsidised, and I pay $35 per consultation, but with prescriptions I usually end up paying around $60 or more anyway. The CSC thresholds are extremely low as well. A person on minimum wage of $12, working full-time - 40 hrs/week, earns over the threshold. That's someone who earns $395 a week after tax (provided they don't have a student loan) and that is calculated on an income AFTER the tax cuts come in from October this year. Before October, it's $383 a week. A couple, both working full-time on minimum wage, earns $14k over the threshold. That's pretty harsh - I would have though those on minimum wage would be classed as low income. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:01am
|
I suppose if you take away subsidised Dr's you would be introducing a culture of insurance.
Which would fit with a National policy of privitisation. I would have thought those on minimum wage would qualify for CSC too. That's the trouble when you earn over 30k a year, the government considers you rich. As for the government not being responsible for the increase in the cost of food, petrol and interest rates. I have to disagree, as there are instances in all three of those cases where the government has forced the increases. The government controls the official cash rate through its inflation policy which in turn effects interest rates. The main component of the cost of fuel is tax, plus gst. That's tax on tax. The cost of dairy products in the country is horrendus, considering we are one of the largest manufactures of it. The government have allowed Fonterra to become a monopoly in this country, and they do have the means to allow milk to be more affordable for consumers, they did it with Telecom. NZ has never had a government for more than 3 terms, and to be honest, Labour hasn't done much in the last 3 years, apart from fall apart it would seem. We had a surplus for over 7-8 years and no tax cuts, now there is an overseas credit crisis its thanks but no thanks. Its all too little too late. I've been a pretty staunch Labour supporter all my voting life, but even I can see we need a change from Helen. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: T_Rex
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 1:17pm
|
I usually try to stay out of these things, especially because at the moment I haven't made up my mind - I want to hear a few more policies from both parties before I decide.
But I just can't help but comment on the dairy issue Fleury mentioned. The thing is, 95% of our dairy produce is exported. So given we are a country founded on agriculture, the reason we need Fonterra is to give NZ farmers clout when it comes to selling milk in the world market. By banding all farmers together, it allows them to be a sizeable player in the market, whereas if they were a series of smaller companies, they'd get pushed around by the bigger players. The reason we are paying high milk prices is because the world milk price has gone up, and we have to pay what the milk would make if it was sold on the world market. We have as many dairy cows as we do people in NZ, so the dairy industry is hugely important to the economy. (I'm not a dairy farmer, btw ) Yes, it would be nice for us as milk consumers if Fonterra would set aside that 5% at a lower price for domestic sale - but I really don't see National introducing a policy like that!!
Ok, I'm shutting up now... but keep the opinions coming... very interesting ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 1:26pm
|
T_Rex you sure you don't work for Fonterra
Yes Fonterra is great for farmers and is ensuring they get a good return. But why does NZ as a small nation that produces milk have to be subjected to world pricing. The government forced Telecom to keep phone rentals down with the Kiwi share agreement, they do have the means to ensure milk is more affordable. Its a much a health issue as anything else, as milk is such a good food source. Do we have to go back to milk in schools. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: fire_engine
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 2:16pm
|
I want to put my head back in the sand . I'm normally really interested in politics, but it just feels like we don't really have any great choices! In the past, I've voted small parties as I couldn't bring myself to vote for Labour or National, but I do feel we need a change, so will probably vote National . I don't want it left to people like - well, Winston, Peter Dunne (who I have voted for - shame on me) - to decide who is the government of the day. They have small mandates of about 5% and have determined the last few governments. Was saying to DH this morning that I just really can't be bothered! One thing that concerns me about changes in government is the new govt makes all these changes (take the selling of the railways by National), and then eventally a new one comes in and changes it back (for a huge amount of money). For some reason I'm far more interested in the US elections than in NZ, probably cos Barack Obama seems like a real visionary, which is something I don't really feel we get from National or Labour. ------------- Mum to two wee boys |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 2:42pm
| As for the doctors thing. We are like $50 above the threshold for community services. If GPs could charge whatever they liked we really would have to consider if we went to the docs when we really needed to. Letting them charge what they like is heading more towards the messed up american health system and increases in illness |
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 3:00pm
|
Oooh, thats another thing!
Tax cuts. How fantastic that National are going to give us these huge tax cuts. But, where will they get the money? Oh, from the budget. Of course. But hang on, how can we actually afford those cuts? Well, they will increase our overseas debt, completely ruining all the good work of the Labour government in reducing the heinous debt run up by the National government previous to them. How on earth can we be expected to support that? Or think its a viable way to run a country? And come to think of it, last time John Key mentioned tax cuts he was beginning to back pedal on the amounts he had originally promised. At least with Labours staggered tax cut proposal it won't mean we get into more debt with the US or other nation that we'd really rather not be indebted to. Oh, and I'm certainly not that keen on our anti-nuclear stance being put to referendum either. |
Posted By: Jessica
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 3:48pm
|
I think I am probably going to gt myself in trouble here but I will be voting national. For several different reasons.
1. I honestly have issues with a lack of transparency with Labour. I believe thet have been quite dishonest over several issues. Eg the Peters saga, he would have been long gone if they had not been trying the get the ETS passed. I think that we do have to look at our emmissions but most people have no understanding the the scheme and it is going to cost every household. Surely such an important and far reaching decision should not have been rushed through under urgency. HC has admitted she knew there was issues with the NZ1st months ago. The anti-smacking bill created such a controversy, surely it should be going to referndum this election, not be ignored and put in the too hard basket as Labour is doing. 2. Labour has also not actually put out many policies, most policies from all parties will be released in the next month or so, which is normal for election year. There is no point releasing them too early. Labour will release some at the last minute as well, like they did with the zero interest on student loans, perssonally great for me but not a wise financial decison for the country as a whole. 3. I think John Key has the intelligence to move the country forward economically, our growth has not been great and our standard of living will increase if our productuvuty increases and in that respect there needs to be less paper shuffling at all levels. we have a business and I spend a huge amount of time on govt related ;paperwork that I don't thiink actually helps anyone, although I suppose it does create plenty of jobs in Wellington! Compliance issues never seem to end. 4. I did my hons in int relations and spent a week overseas with Helen Clark and several other politicians from Labour and National, none of them impressed me, most of their dealings with each other are petty and do not help NZ at all. I found Helen unfriendly and she spent quite rude at times with people who were not of benefit to her. And she seemed to spend her whole time only talking to Heather Simpson. I guess I am a 'typical' national voter, we have a business (about 10 staff) and I come from a farming background. But I do think we need to encourage people to not be reliant on the state (although I certainly think there is a place for benefits, but not as a long term option). As a nation we are innovative and people need to be encouraged to increase productivity so we can increase our standard of living so we stop losing many of our bright innovative people to better prospects overseas. ------------- 
Our con-joined boys 20 wk |
Posted By: arohanui
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 3:59pm
Wow, I could have written this! Especially the last part about the US elections... Barack Obama has so much passion and I agree with his policies, I really hope he gets in... ------------- Mama to DS1 (5 years), DS2 (3 years) and... http://alterna-tickers.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 4:06pm
Thank you I agree with all that you have said, but mostly this bit. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 5:00pm
|
Oh Jessica.... just cos you are misguided, doesn't mean you will get into trouble for it....
Seriously though, whilst I have to disagree with almost all of what you've said (except point 4 as I wasn't there so can't comment!), the fact that it is an educated opinion, one that contains issues and the prospect of outcomes around those issues that are important to you, in my (kinda educated) opinion is great
|
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 5:09pm
Geez, the cow in me wants you to name one. Sorry, but this comment mad me a bit pissed. Our parents received an "allowance" of sorts for every child - I think it was like $20 or something...not a lot, but helps, I don't think anyone is going to let an extra $40 a week convince them to have another child that they wouldn't have otherwise. we get a whopping $30 a week from WFF, soon to be zilch. i would love another baby, but NOT because I get a bit more cash. and I don';t know anyone who thinks this way. and if they do they are insane as kids cost a hellavar lot more than the pittiful increase WFF would give you |
Posted By: kriss
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 5:19pm
|
if anyone has seen the june/july 08 kiwiparent magazine, there are a few pages about upcoming policies from national, labour, the greens and maori party and how they hope to benefit each category of life eg education, health, maternity. might help someone to make up their minds about their vote ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
Little Angel, April 10
|
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 6:11pm
|
I agree with you on that Lizzle. Remember only families that actually go out to work for at least 20 hours per week qualify. You have to work to be allowed assistance - we're not talking abot people that sit around on their asses all day squeezing out kids for a few extra dollars. I plan to have more kids, soon I hope, and it's certainly not for the money because even with an extra child and me on ML we still won't qualify for WFF. I love that it's available for those that need it though, there was a time when DH and I were scraping to get by and believe it or not that $40 pw from WFF really made a difference for us. I'd hate to see that cut off for good families in need.
-------------
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 6:17pm
I completely agree! We do get WFF and it does help a lot. When #2 comes along we will end up a little better off because of WFF initally but my god does a kid cost a hella lot more than WFF will ever give!! I don't think anyone sane would go and have another child just for the WFF money. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 6:35pm
|
Then how come the number of live births have increased since 2002, when WFF was introduced. With a reduced population of fertile women?
Just cause the women on here aren't having more children cause of WFF, doesn't mean other's aren't. Would people be having 4 or more children if WFF wasn't available? ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 7:31pm
| i don't think you can attribute a rise in births to an increase in WFF. and yes, i think people WOULD be having four or more - just scraping by and having huge financial problems to do it though. |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 7:41pm
| and out of interest, had a look at stats anbout birth increases (quickly albeit) and while will agree that births have increased, it seems to be a cyclic event with most statisticans saying that it will decrease over the 2009-2011 period. and NONE of them are attributing this increase to WFF |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 7:42pm
|
The rise in birth rates is a trend. But you also could take into account the rise in rates of women needing and taking up the opportunity to use IVF which has increased the amount of multiple births.
People don't just have kids cause WFF is around. Whether that is a family of 4 (ie 2 adults and 2 kids) or 6 or 8. People have kids generally speaking because they want them. Those that choose to have more kids do so because they want a big family, not because of the potential money they might get from the govt. WFF does not cover the cost of raising a child at all for the majority of those who get it. |
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 7:49pm
|
Large families (of 4 or more) was a lot more common before WFF was introduced. I am from a family of 6 and DH from a family of 8 and our parents didn't receive any assistance, used all the tricks in the book to make money stretch and certainly went without personal luxuries to ensure that we kids had a childhood. They had large families because they wanted them (and possibly there was nothing decent on tv). I also want a huge family. I loved my childhood, loved having my brothers and sisters to play with and I love children and would love to have more (4-6 in my mind would be ideal). Getting money from the government has never crossed my mind as a reason to have more kids. Why is it so hard to believe that other people feel the same way and want large families for genuine reasons? Anyone who decides to have more children for the extra $10-15 per week (or whatever it is) that they'd get from WFF needs to have their heads checked and if there is anyone out there doing it (and honestly I've not heard of anyone) I think they'd be the minority. -------------
|
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 7:54pm
|
I should add too that I believe the children are our future (as the song says) why shouldn't the government invest in them? By helping to keep NZers above the poverty line WFF is investing in our future. I don't remember exact stats but I do remember reading an article several years ago (before WFF was introduced) and being shocked at the number of NZ children that live in impoverished conditions. I'd love to see another study done comparing those figures to todays stats now that WFF is inforce. -------------
|
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 9:45pm
|
Given that the average age of first births for women is 32 and that anyone around that age is the by-product of baby boomers it's not surprising that the live births have risen in the last 6 years. Like Stacey said it's a trend. I think attributing it to WFF is like saying global warming has lead to the decline in pirates (thank you http://www.venganza.org/ - Church of the flying spaghetti monster )
And our population is aging and without a much needed boost in live births we are all going to be in serious trouble down the track. A baby boom is far from a bad thing regardless of the socio economic conditions that these children come from. Argh I'm not well and I'm doing a terrible job of expressing this sorry. I'll leave it to Stacey since I agree with her points 100% and she's much more eloquent than me at the moment. -------------  
 
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 10:04pm
Me too! Apart from the part about talking to DH coz Willie has no interest in politics and refuses to vote. I'm going to vote National in the absence of anyone else worth voting for. Labour have had their chance, it's time for a change. ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
 (02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: susieq
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 10:13pm
| I too as I said think its time for a change and agree with what Jessica said earlier in her post on here |
Posted By: Candkids
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 1:30pm
we arnt entitled to anything from WWF which i find really unfair actually we have a business (well DH does) we manage to just break even on it so no profit as yet but due to the turnover of it we dont get anything from WFF. despite the fact that we have a mortgage, both work & im studying too, dh pays child support too, we have to lease the buildings dh's business is in we have 2 x phone/power/internet /water/ gas &rates id actually be stoked to get even $20 a week. and the ird lady had the nerve to tell me that if i was a single parent on my current personal income i would get around $280extra a week! i think they need to adjust how they analise who gets $ and who doesnt ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">  DD 10.5yrs DS 6yrs DS 11mths 5 little angles watching from above |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 1:39pm
|
Those that are self employed will probably find themselves better off under a National government. As they favour reducing the company tax rate, and generally favour those in business.
Which is how it should be, the only way the economy can improve is if there are more jobs created to put people into employment, and the only way to do that is to help companies keep more of their profit so they can take on extra staff. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:34pm
|
I think I will vote National, because we have just two major parties and I don't like Labour But I do hate that reason, so I'm sway-able, but only to the right - so most likely to United Future (who I might vote for the area candidate, but I can't quite remember how all that works LOL).
We get WFF, we are single income and therefore "low income" for a couple. But we started having lots of kids before WFF came in. I think we had already had our oldest two and planned for #3 before we heard of WFF? So I take issue with that WFF comment earlier as well. As far as Labour goes, I'm basically with Jessica. While I do appreciate things like WFF, you will probably remember when they were talking about bringing it in, National had a comparison up on their website (trying to convince people to go for tax cuts instead) and we would have ended up at much the same place ($6 different per week?) with either party in charge. But I am totally PRO being in charge of my own money (the tax cuts way) instead of having to give in all my financial information to WINZ and IRD and feel like I have to haggle or beg for hand-outs instead. Even on a low income, finances are not however my priority in voting. The laws that Labour has managed to get through in the last few years have really saddened me. Prostitution, anti-smacking... I feel like the govt lied to us and got them thru but they could have just reworded laws (ie why didn't they reword the anti-smacking law to say exactly what they meant - to stop abuse? or change the prostitution law so that men would also be charged, not to legalise the whole thing and put more girls on the streets). Still, everyone is being very, very quiet on their policies and plans and I am awaiting the political barrage which is probably coming soon.... for a short time
ETA: I think it's funny that people talk about how National made such a mess and Labour had to fix it up, etc, etc... well Labour has been in power for 9 years so who is to say that National is the same? There's probably very few people still there who were actually in govt last time IYGWIM. ------------- |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:54pm
|
Eek, I missed the whole WFF debate!
Yes, without WFF we would struggle big time, but WFF has been around in the form of Family Support for many years prior to it's current incarnation, all that Labour did was expand the number of families entitled and increase the amount paid. Would I still have had four kids without it? Absolutely! Partly coz I anticipate one day earning enough to no longer need WFF, and partly coz I am crap at contraception it seems. Mum and Dad raised four kids on a single income and survived. Yes things were tight, but we never noticed as kids, we always had what we needed. LOL, listen to me, you'd think I was a Labour advocate or something! So totally not! ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Kels
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 10:14pm
|
Totally agree. Labour have my vote and if National gets in I will have to move me and my kids across the ditch to surivive. I get WFF (and no I didnt have kids just to get it ) and wouldnt be able to survive without. My wages only just cover my rent and Alize's DC fees everything else is covered by my WFF so if nation get it I will have to give up my house and move in with my mum until I can get a job in OZ and move there. I can make triple over there what I make here so it would be my only means of survival for me and my kids ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
Busy mum to Miss 15yrs, Miss 10yrs and Master 4yrs |
Posted By: T_Rex
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 1:30am
|
Ok, I'm overseas at the mo, so a bit out of the loop. Have National said they are scrapping WFF? Have they said what their alternative is? Also, I didn't think they were going to sell Kiwibank?
Also, I just want to say that I think voting against labour because of what they have already done is actually pretty pointless. Either way its done. You should be looking at the relevant parties and seeing what they are GOING to do, because that is what is going to affect you from now on. This should be about looking forward, not backward. I have my list of *important* things, and I'll be seeing what each of the parties are promising for those things, and I'll choose the one that I most agree with on those things. PS. Fleury - nope, I don't work for Fonterra I won't see any more benefit from the dairy boom than you will. But I still think Fonterra is a good thing.
Also the comment made earlier that people thinking of voting national needed to do their research really irked me - EVERYBODY needs to do their research, not just those thinking of voting national! ETA: For the record, capitals are for emphasis, not shouting ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: LizzyJ
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 7:34am
|
no national have not said that they are scrpaping WFF. i just hope than winston is out, but looks like he might get back in, one of his party members is a hot fav in their electorate so if he gets in he will get to take his leader back in, ***sigh*** how can we have a politician who has been in parliment for over 20 years and fired from every portolio that he has ever held!
I also think the traditional National and Labour divide in policy is so small these days, i remember as a kd they had very different plolicys. ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 8:21am
|
T-Rex, secret recordings came out of national MPs talking about selling Kiwibank, changing WFF and some other things which I can't remember. There was a lot of talk about swallowing dead rats or something. Sorry is quite hard to follow the news some days with a 15 month old keeping me busy.
I think labour may have shot themselves in the foot with the whole Winston thing, I found it quite cringe worthy when Helen kept going on about trust in her speech when she announced the election date because they haven't exactly been that trustworthy themselves recently, but I can also understand why she didn't sack him straight away as she might of needed him to get re-elected. I'm not really a fan of the whole MMP system, it's one of those things that seems like a good idea but in reality you get pillocks like Winston Peters being your foreign minister
I think labour need a fresh new leader, when they have been in too long they seem to lose touch with reality. Tony Blair was a prime example of that. -------------
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 9:17am
|
Anyone that thinks Helen Clark is trust worthy only goes to prove how good Labour's propaganda machine is.
She comes across as this 'typical' new zealander when she is anything but. John Key's history is completely transparent he's been in international banking and finance if you want to find out what he's done you only have to google him. He may be very rich now, but he started from very humble roots which goes to show what hard work and determination can achieve. Makes a much better role model for me. I also like the fact that he is younger, he has a family and has worked outside politics, I also prefer Bill English as his deputy and finance minister, than Michael Cullen who keeps all OUR money to himself. When Labour were talking about bringing in 20 hours free child care for 3 and 4 year olds. National's idea was to have the same thing but as a tax rebate, which you claim on your tax, under that system you have a choice of which child care centre you want to use. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 12:31pm
I disagree strongly. I think she's been slammed many many many times about her personal situation. But I feel she is more in touch with NZ than John Key is by a long shot! |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:17pm
Amen, Nikki, Amen ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:19pm
|
ooh and remember when Billy Boy English was a head honcho once before???? Didn't do such a good job and got sent to the naughty corner... ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:23pm
Yup, Amen from here too. |
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:32pm
|
I got a handout at the train station today (one of the joys of living in our nations capital during election campaigning). It refers to a website http://www.fairnessatwork.co.nz - www.fairnessatwork.co.nz but I haven't looked at it yet. It also points out some of the big gains we've had in the last 9 years, such as:
National opposed every single one of these things when they were introduced. -------------
|
Posted By: MrsMojo
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:43pm
|
Furthermore although National have refused to release any policies (despite it's candidate for my area offering to then never contacting me back
If it is time for a change..... what do you think we're changing to? -------------
|
slack cow) there have been a few things that have been let slip or alluded too. Such as:Posted By: ohanlon82
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 2:44pm
|
thanks for the info - these polices are all good
Dont get me wrong i think Labour has done very well but being a young married couple with no kids and earning alright money (alright i say nothing to great) and when we do decided to have kids we will not get any WFF - these polices will not really do much for us at the moment. the only one will benefit will be 20 hours free care. the doctors one dont benefit cause we earn too much apparently Also being in a family business - the tax relief that our family business got from National (back in there terms) were so much more than they had in the last terms with Labour This will be interesting times for both National and Labour ------------- http://lb2f.lilypie.com/TikiPic.php/RPaODBg.jpg |
Posted By: susieq
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 5:23pm
| And Helen also knew about this fonterra thing ten days a go so basically no party tells the truth |
Posted By: susieq
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 5:25pm
| still think National will do a good job given the chance |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 15 September 2008 at 5:35pm
|
I haven't decided who is getting my vote yet as I'm still waiting to see all the policies before I decide but I detest John Key as a leader - he's so smug and smarmy.
I know a lot of people (not just on here) are voting for National because 'it's time for a change' but what if the change is for the worse? I think regardless of who you vote for you need to base it on something more than that. I agree with T_Rex - we need to look at what everyone is going to do not what they've done. All parties are guilty of mucking things up if you look back it's just a matter of how far back you are prepared to remember. -------------
|