Written By: - Date published: 11:35 am, May 17th, 2008 - 190 comments
Categories: election 2008, polls -
Tags: fairfax media poll, national, polls
As we all know the latest Fairfax poll has shown a huge lead for the National Party. Now I’m of the opinion it’s probably a rogue poll and we could argue that point (and methodology, and trends, etc) until the cows come home but I’m interested in something else. If this poll was hypothetically the final count on election day it would mean National would have a clear mandate to govern alone.
This surprises me because National has provided very little policy and hasn’t distinguished itself much in terms of anything but “time for a change” rhetoric. In fact the bulk of the reasons I hear people claim they want a National government is because they don’t want a Labour one and outside of unfounded rhetoric I don’t hear much reason why.
We have a lot of intelligent and thoughtful rightwing commenters on this site and I figure they might be able to elucidate something for me. If you are one of these commenters what I want you to tell me is this:
You’ll be voting for National come election day. What will you be voting for them to change and what have you seen from them that leads you to believe they’ll make that change?
And I’ll say again I’m not interested in banal mutterings about “Klark” and “Helengrad”. I want to know what you will be voting for, not against.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“People tend to cite academics (that agree with them) in awed tones, and rubbish academics (that disagree with them) as out of touch ivory tower fools who don’t have to work for a living.”
Does the same go for economists, r0b?
Everyone tends to cite those that they agree with Phil, and disparage those they disagree with. But I do think that there is a particularly formulaic and empty way of writing off academics with opposing views (as described above).
r0b, that’s an announcement from Labour’s ninth year of government, which still doesn’t address the “chasm” with Australia. What about the first eight years?
Oh come on Milo, do your own homework.
Do you still claim that – “This government has been extremely anti-intellectual” – or were you just ranting?
It’s an announcement r0b. Labour are very good at announcments – like getting into the top half of the OECD, delivering tax cuts, and going carbon neutral.
Don’t run from the question milo, do you still claim that – “This government has been extremely anti-intellectual’ – or were you just ranting?
Yes, I do claim that r0b. Based on performance, not promises. Fairly small promises, at that.
Well good on you for at least answering the question. But Milo, you’re way out in lala land here. You claim that the government is “extremely anti-intellectual”, your only “evidence” is that the funding for universities could be better, and you are in direct disagreement with the union representing academics. Seriously Milo, that dog ain’t going to hunt.
I agree with Milo actually, the govt talks the talk on quality outcomes from educational institutions and sure if you are “Labour good” in your outlook it’s easy to claim they are doing a great job, but initiatives likes Dr. Cullen’s course funding based on govt policy requirements is certainly a major step backward in the pure intellectual sense. State funding for the state – provision for the public service elite paid for by the masses – no thank you DR. Cullen.
Threads are like Rorschach ink-blots, everyone reads into them what they want to see. Lord knows what Burt sees.
We’ll agree to disagree I think r0b. But I do value your contributions.
r0b, they only acknowledge the concerns of New Zealanders if you accept that Labour knows best.
So you have to sign a loyalty pledge to get your tax cut? I don’t think so Milo. You go so far as to accuse this government of being “extremely anti-intellectual”, so I think it’s pretty safe to say that you aren’t actually willing or able to think clearly about them.
But “trust us we know best’ just isn’t a very good election slogan
I quite agree, but given the absence of policies (other than Labour Lite) it does seem to be National’s stance.
Lynn – sorry – posted the above comment in the wrong thread – it could be deleted here.
Milo, Likewise I’m sure, Goodnight.
I’m a newbie here (as of today). Hope no-one minds I add my 2c.
I consider myself a pragmatist rather than a “right or left” and I have been called both based upon facets of my views. I’ll accept that pragmatist probably puts me as a “righty” by the masters of this blog.
I’ll be voting National by default – after crossing out all of the less compatible options. If NZ first ditched Winston and their xenophobia (and probably more) then they might get a second look (but then I guess there would be an empty husk).
“A change to what” you ask?
For starters I get the impression that the present government is not just indifferent to those who it deems rich, rather it finds them abhorrent (if they commit the crime of holding views different to their own as many of them do). The language of the Labour party is loaded with this idea. An exception is rich donors to their own party; they are saints.
I also get the impression that the government has ignored the views of those that are not “rich” as it assumes it has them on a chain (ie: they’re not going anywhere).
So I’d like to see a govt that recognises those that contribute to the revenue of the country at the top end of the scale just as much as it recognises those at the other end of the scale. No more, no less. That might seem like a subtle point but for me it is important.
I’d like to see more choice in publicly funded services. I don’t like the “it’s jellimeat or nothing” stance. If I don’t like jellimeat then at least let me offset the price of the jellimeat you are prepared to give me against my rice. [excuse the metaphor] Longer term I’d expect this to improve the quality of public services.
At present the concept of risk/reward is of Satan. Like being paid on performance it just goes against the ideology of the govt. I’d like to see that change to become a basic tenet of policy to drive NZ forward (reward for risk taken).
On the magnitude of tax cuts I don’t really care. It is the thought that counts. Labour’s tax cuts are nothing more than a false pass. A decoy for voters. Whether or not they are given is nor important for me for either party as both have made their positions abundantly clear over the past decade.
Overall I feel that Labour is looking towards the poor and attempting to tilt the field to the advantage of those who are less financially successful. While I think this is a noble gesture and deserving of some credit I also think that the country will naturally veer in the direction that the govt is looking. Focus on low income earners and those are what you will keep. Others will look elsewhere.
Oh, and I’d like to see a carrot for every stick that is waved.
I’m a newbie here (as of today). Hope no-one minds I add my 2c.
Of course not jbc, welcome aboard.
I’ll be voting National by default – after crossing out all of the less compatible options.
I think that’s a pity. This whole thread is about the idea of voting for something, it shouldn’t be about just the lesser of the evils.
For starters I get the impression that the present government is not just indifferent to those who it deems rich, rather it finds them abhorrent
Can I ask you where that impression comes from? Please don’t quote Kiwiblog or other vested interests, I’d be interested in the words / actions of the Labour government that gives you this idea. (Cullen’s stupid “rich prick” comment to Key is the obvious one, a personal attack not an attack on the rich in general).