Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 121800	2011-11-14 06:12:00	Two Johns One Tape	Cato (6936)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1243503	2011-11-15 06:39:00	Interesting. I actually see it differently - I see this as making their intentions clear to voters, so that you know exactly what you are choosing - i.e. you know in advance that National and Act are likely to attempt to work together, and you can use that information to help decide who you will vote for. The sad fact is I support policies from several parties and it ends up being a choice of the lesser of the various evils. I have absolutely no faith in Act with Don Brash as leader so by National aligning themselves with Act they have totally lost any creditability in my books and in the last elections National did a deal with Act to get their members to support Act with the electorate vote but give National their party vote and not standing a creditable candidate against Act. To me that is subverting the electoral process.	mikebartnz (21)
1243504	2011-11-15 06:50:00	National is standing a candidate in Epsom (and that candidate is currently polling reasonably well). The meeting was a media stunt, intended to send the message that voting for Act isn't a wasted vote, and prevent people ditching them across all electorates. It was also intended to send a "vote for Banks" message to Epsom, because Act can't get into parliament without winning this seat unless they get 5% of the party vote (unlikely). The outcome is to keep Act alive as a coalition option - they probably won't need them this time around, but will almost certainly need them in 2014, and if they don't get any MPs in this year then they're highly unlikely to be viable in 2014. Ok, if wise counsel has now advised National they had better put up a candidate to make things look right so be it. However, the Jiggery- Pokery you explain i.e. “National is standing a candidate in Epsom (and that candidate is currently polling reasonably well). The meeting was a media stunt, intended to send the message that voting for Act isn't a wasted vote, and prevent people ditching them across all electorates. It was also intended to send a "vote for Banks" message to Epsom, because Act can't get into parliament without winning this seat unless they get 5% of the party vote (unlikely). The outcome is to keep Act alive as a coalition option - they probably won't need them this time around, but will almost certainly need them in 2014, and if they don't get any MPs in this year then they're highly unlikely to be viable in 2014.” defies belief. Think about it, our Prime Minister is indulging in Media Stunts, Photo Opportunities and Underhand Backroom Deals with other parties to try and ensure He and his mates stay in power. No consideration is given as to policy and how to get this country out of deep poooo. Clearly the guy is no better than the others and “Morally Bankrupt”. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1243505	2011-11-15 06:55:00	...not standing a creditable candidate against Act.What makes you think that they're not standing a viable candidate? Until very recently, the National candidate for Epsom was rating at around 45% or so. See news article here (www.nbr.co.nz) and polling here (curiablog.wordpress.com), here (curiablog.wordpress.com) and here (www.ipredict.co.nz). To me that is subverting the electoral process.I agree that not running a candidate at all would be (up to a point - there's some interesting scenarios where it doesn't actually change anything), but National is running a candidate, and a rather strong one.	Erayd (23)
1243506	2011-11-15 07:05:00	Ok, if wise counsel has now advised National they had better put up a candidate to make things look right so be it.This isn't new; National has been standing a candidate in Epsom all along, and a reasonably strong candidate at that. See the links in my post above for evidence backing that up. However, the Jiggery- Pokery you explain i.e. [snipped quote] defies belief.Can you clarify what you think is incorrect about that explanation? I can see that you don't agree with it (which is fine), but I'm curious as to why. Think about it, our Prime Minister is indulging in Media Stunts, Photo Opportunities...Of course - he's trying to persuade people to vote for him, as is everybody else seeking seats in parliament. Obviously he's trying to influence people's opinions, but which part of this do you see as morally wrong? ...and Underhand Backroom Deals with other parties to try and ensure He and his mates stay in power.Which deals are you referring to? You have yet to cite one, or if you have, then I didn't understand your citation - can you clarify what you see as being an underhand deal, and why? No consideration is given as to policy and how to get this country out of deep poooo.Have you been following the news lately? National has been releasing lots of policy, for most of the year (obviously more of it recently though, so people remember it on election day). Clearly the guy is no better than the others and “Morally Bankrupt”. :rolleyes:Based on what evidence? Obviously he's a politician, but what you see so clearly isn't at all evident to me - I'd love to know how you arrived at that conclusion.	Erayd (23)
1243507	2011-11-15 07:16:00	Very nice Erayd. I will be voting for FPP.	Cicero (40)
1243508	2011-11-15 07:18:00	I'd love to know how you arrived at that conclusion. In the real world he goes by the name Zoltar He knows all.He sees all. No secrets are hidden from him He just doesn't make much sense. cdn.uberreview.com	Metla (12)
1243509	2011-11-15 07:20:00	I will be voting for FPP.:D. I'm not saying what I'm voting for yet, I have too much fun debating the issues with people.	Erayd (23)
1243510	2011-11-15 07:23:00	[QgUOTE=Erayd;1060558]:D. I'm not saying what I'm voting for yet, I have too much fun debating the issues with people.[/QUOTE] Debate all you like just vote the right way. Oh and remember not to forget Zoltar the terrible.	Cicero (40)
1243511	2011-11-15 07:25:00	There are National people and there are Labour people. Almost never a N voter will change to L. Almost never a L voter will change to N. Nothing anyone can say will make them change their mind, that is what they are and most of the time their parents voted the same as them. Even when L performs badly the L voters will still vote for L, and vice versa for N. Then there are the others, but they have their heads in the sand like atheists, they are the 5% that think the other 95% are wrong	Gobe1 (6290)
1243512	2011-11-15 07:28:00	If that were the case the government would never change. Personally I think 2 successive terms is enough for any party, they get carried away. If I have some contempt for labour its mainly due to how they won the last time they were elected and the resulting mess. They screwed the country over in a massive way just so they could have a nice job for 3 freakin years.	Metla (12)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7