Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 89746	2008-05-10 10:13:00	Will You Vote National ?	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
667999	2008-05-10 22:58:00	Until we get rid of MMP then forget about having a good strong government, when you get people (Winston P) in parliament who were unelected last time but then can get a major job in the cabinet then there has to be something seriously wrong with the system. I have always favoured first past the post as my countrymen and women vote back in the old country, without it we would not be able to produce the strong leaders when they are needed most (Churchill, Thatcher) to name two. With first past the post all parties get an even break to make it into power. I will not be voting National as they will be giving Tax breaks to the rich only, I will probably vote Labour but not necessarily so depends who else has good policies nearer the time.	gary67 (56)
668000	2008-05-10 23:02:00	I will not be voting National as they will be giving Tax breaks to the rich only, I will probably vote Labour but not necessarily so depends who else has good policies nearer the time. So which is better? Proposed Tax breaks for the "rich" only from National or NONE at all for 2 terms from Labour?	vitalstatistix (9182)
668001	2008-05-10 23:17:00	Only trouble is Labour describes you as rich if you try and get off your butt and earn a moderate income. They then give you higher taxes so that they can pay election bribes to people who didn't get of their butt. So giving a tax cut the so called "rich" makes perfect sense to me.	Twelvevolts (5457)
668002	2008-05-10 23:29:00	So which is better? Proposed Tax breaks for the "rich" only from National or NONE at all for 2 terms from Labour? Based on this statement and as I am not rich then definitely the latter. Such a statement only promotes the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, I would place myself as being somewhere in between. I would rather tax or even this huge surplus that is often talked about be spent wisely to benefit everyone. Of course noone in power is going to please everyone.	sam m (517)
668003	2008-05-11 00:04:00	Only trouble is Labour describes you as rich if you try and get off your butt and earn a moderate income. They then give you higher taxes so that they can pay election bribes to people who didn't get of their butt. So giving a tax cut the so called "rich" makes perfect sense to me. x2 :thumbs: No political party has all the answers but just get the damn socialists out. Labour is bad for New Zealand. Full stop.	legod (4626)
668004	2008-05-11 00:09:00	So what? You'll find out soon enough what inexperience in politics can wreak. If John Key doesn't go pear shaped in the election campaign (and I'm predicting some doozies) he certainly will when he is suddenly leading the Cabinet and the knives start geting sharpened. BS. It's usually the experienced politicians making the fools of themselves. I just want someone who is going to get on with the job of running the country. Not someone who is continuously going to engage in ***** fights and slagging matches. That's all we hear constantly from Labour politicians in particular. They never actually do their job. Instead they are obsessed with spin and throwing stones at the opposition. Seriously - a small country of 4 million people can't be hard to manage. Yet nothing ever gets done because we've got >100 overpaid fat bellied politicians doing nothing but playing games. And Labour stir the pot more than most.	legod (4626)
668005	2008-05-11 00:24:00	Based on this statement and as I am not rich then definitely the latter. Such a statement only promotes the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, I would place myself as being somewhere in between. I would rather tax or even this huge surplus that is often talked about be spent wisely to benefit everyone. Of course noone in power is going to please everyone. The only reason the "rich" get "richer" is because they work smarter and sometimes harder in jobs that pay well(70k and above) or very well and they then save/invest what they can rather than spending it all. Workers who are classed as "poor" tend to also work hard but in labour intensive jobs that have low hourly pay rates and don't always require a great deal of brain power to do them ( no offense to teachers, nurses, firefighters, police etc) I am mostly talking about factory shift workers, supermarket checkout operators and the like who probably make up 30-40% of the countries labour force. What is going to help this country? Invest more in science, research and innovation so that we don't have to rely on commodity based work like dairy farming for the bulk of our export dollars. If we can encourage our engineers, scientists and scholars and like minded people from other countries to set up shop here then we can have more of a chance competing against the rest of the world. Innovation and investment will always win out out over labouring and hard work when it comes to earning power in a competitive world.	vitalstatistix (9182)
668006	2008-05-11 01:17:00	Well personally, I would die in the ditches before I would ever vote for a Tory party. In fact I would probably die if I did - I wouldn't be able to live with the shame. I'm with Deane F on this one - wait 12 - 18 months and the whingers will have swapped sides again. But his comment that "the most able person they've got is Gerry Brownlee, followed by Maurice Williamson" is truly terrifying. "Gerry Brownlee" and "ability" or "talent" are not a natural fit! Oxymorons, more like. If Deane F is right (and I think he may be, cos when I see the Opposition front bench on tv, I can't give a name for any of the other non persons sitting there), and if others are right and national will sleep walk into power in an anti Labour vote, NZ is in deep doo doo. Again, personally, I think there is more talent in the Maori Party than in national.	John H (8)
668007	2008-05-11 02:14:00	Yes some of the Maori Party people speak good sense, and they do nto engage in personal slanging matches. I will be voting National, but it does upset me that they seem to have mostly tired losers coming up as ministers Maurice Williamson (says a lot but never accomplished anything other than "life time" driving licenses), Gerry (bully boy Brownlee), Lockwood Smith, Tony Riallsme. And as for John Key, he should be much better than he appears to be, he can never make up his mind and doe snot seem to be right wing enough. I am sick of Labour keeping our taxes high, not encouraging business enough, doing nothing to get our interest rates down, and constantly setting up new bueracrices. And giving 700 million for R&D into farming ! Which is our biggest earner, but one that we can never rely on to bring our incomes up. Any paying $600 million for a bunch of worn out locomotives.	Digby (677)
668008	2008-05-11 02:22:00	How may remember Ruth Richardson and her "mother of all Budgets"? The effect still lingers in the children of the 90's. Max Bradford and his cheaper electricity under private enterprise? How many COE's Boards and consultants got fat off that sale? Jenny Shipley and her total lack of understanding of the role of PM? She lasted no time at all before being rolled, a bit like Bill English, rolled for Don, and who contradicts his boss on a range of issues? Don Brash and his lies about party funding and "nuclear gone by lunch-time" statement? And the backroom dealer of all time, Murray McCully, who invented policy to suit the rich list who secretly backed Brash? And continues to deal for Keys? The flip flops of John Keys, about fifteen in a year? And a man who has no cabinet experience at all? Whose adult experience is based on his wealth? Want him for PM? The back room deals done in regard to SOEs and NZ Rail? And there are people who want to repeat this ?	leonidas5 (2306)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11