Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 92787	2008-08-23 02:50:00	Govt. plans to delay referendum	Erayd (23)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
699547	2008-08-24 02:29:00	Interesting... It seems that this thread has called all the labour supporters out of the woodwork. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to hear Nats reason for that,the cads.They were fishing for votes / coalition partners. They got a few changes made, although they didn't get what they wanted, and then they voted for the bill anyway. This achieved two things: Made them appear a slightly better proposition to the parties they may have to ally with. Caused some supporters of these parties to switch their vote to National The reality is, unless they get into power, they can't really do any good. So they're compromising on things left, right & centre just to get into power - they have a far better shot at making changes when they're the govt than when they're the opposition.	Erayd (23)
699548	2008-08-24 02:47:00	Interesting... It seems that this thread has called all the labour supporters out of the woodwork. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were fishing for votes / coalition partners. They got a few changes made, although they didn't get what they wanted, and then they voted for the bill anyway. This achieved two things: Made them appear a slightly better proposition to the parties they may have to ally with. Caused some supporters of these parties to switch their vote to National The reality is, unless they get into power, they can't really do any good. So they're compromising on things left, right & centre just to get into power - they have a far better shot at making changes when they're the govt than when they're the opposition. Thats why I liked Brash,he wasn't a compromiser. At the same time most voters don't think apart from what will they do for me,so out with Brash.	Cicero (40)
699549	2008-08-24 03:13:00	Indeed. Sadly, most of the country appears to be filled with metaphorical sheep :groan:.	Erayd (23)
699550	2008-08-24 07:39:00	Only 8 MPs voted against the Bill. All very well, but 59 could have voted against it and it would have made no odds. The whole system is up to S**t.	joemac (9739)
699551	2008-08-24 12:47:00	All very well, but 59 could have voted against it and it would have made no odds. The whole system is up to S**t. Well Joe I don't know if you belong to any clubs or organisations but majority vote is the way decisions are made throughout society, right down to three friends deciding where to fish. No big deal, Parliament will always work this way.	Winston001 (3612)
699552	2008-08-24 12:55:00	The whole point of a democratic government is to represent the interests of the general population, which it clearly isn't doing here. Obviously (and rather unsurprisingly) they're far more interested in saving their own sorry hides from being voted out of office for doing a lousy job. Disagree. We elect representatives to lead us, not to follow. The majority of the population may want Section 59 of the Crimes Act to be changed back, but at the same time, the vast majority have never read it, do not understand it, have never attended court, have never watched a trial of abusive parents etc etc. Basically the majority (who are decent parents too) have no understanding of the issue. The fact that the main opposition party, National, voted for the law change should tell you something. The 'anti-smacking" words were made-up by the press, its got sod-all to do with the actual law. Another quick example - our anti-nuclear stance. Not even all the Labour Party supported this, and certainly not a majority on Kiwis, but the Lange Government did it anyway. And today its a popular policy. Not with me, but them's the breaks. :D	Winston001 (3612)
699553	2008-08-24 13:13:00	It effectively classifies a parent smacking a child as assault, an event that can be punished by law. What more do parents need to know about the bill? That it in no way address the problem of children being assaulted?, The outrage and backlash, hell, even the media hype is exactly what should have happened, Just a damn shame it didn't bring down the government. Now they will lose the election over it, Just a pity that's all they lose. The claimed issue was that people used section 59 as defence for abuse, who cares?, People caught doing crap will use any excuse they can think up, helped every step of their way by their lawyers, The excuse or claim just like any other can be ignored. How many people who killed their children were let off because they claimed they were allowed to under section 59?	Metla (12)
699554	2008-08-24 15:13:00	Disagree. We elect representatives to lead us, not to follow.No - you elect people to lead you, possibly because you feel you need to be led. From my point of view, which is one I share with a large number of people, we elect our government to carry out the will of the people (meaning the general population here) - that is the entire purpose of a democracy; to allow a society to rule itself without too much fuss. As a committee of millions clearly isn't viable, we elect representatives who share our views. The majority of the population may want Section 59 of the Crimes Act to be changed back, but at the same time, the vast majority have never read it, do not understand it, have never attended court, have never watched a trial of abusive parents etc etc.They don't need to. They understand the most important thing here - that the law, as it now stands, classifies any parent using corporal punishment as guilty of abuse, subject only to the complete discretion of what the police officers in question would consider 'inconsequential' force. The change removed the legal defensive position of using 'reasonable' force as a parenting tool. Whatever the law actually says, the general public (and the media) appear to have grasped the most important point here. I'm with Metla on this one. Basically the majority (who are decent parents too) have no understanding of the issue.Which is exactly why the media put it in terms they could understand. The fact that the main opposition party, National, voted for the law change should tell you something. Yes - it tells you that the National party understands politics, and they know that if they don't get in, they can do nothing. Therefore they are making tradeoffs in order to get elected. It's a completely naive assumption to make that just because they vote for something, they must agree with it in its entirety. The 'anti-smacking" words were made-up by the press, its got sod-all to do with the actual law.Indeed - it places the fundamental essence of this change into terms that even the most basic intellect can grasp. As such, it conveys exactly the right message. Who cares if it misses the exact letter of the law, as long as it conveys the overall intent? Another quick example - our anti-nuclear stance. Not even all the Labour Party supported this, and certainly not a majority on Kiwis, but the Lange Government did it anyway. And today its a popular policy. Not with me, but them's the breaks. :DYup - people are now scared of nuclear technology. And because politicians generally have a somewhat pragmatic view where such things can have a strong impact on their position, they avoid taking such a controversial position in order to acquire / maintain power.	Erayd (23)
699555	2008-08-24 20:15:00	Well put Erad and Met. I await old winnies retort.	Cicero (40)
699556	2008-08-24 21:09:00	Why should children not have the same recourse to the law as adults do when they are subject to common assault?	Deane F (8204)
1 2 3 4 5 6