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).

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.

Milo, Likewise I’m sure, Goodnight.

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.

Do you still claim that – “This government has been extremely anti-intellectual” – or were you just ranting?