Quarter of a million signatures to Keep Our Assets

41 comments on “Quarter of a million signatures to Keep Our Assets ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   3 September 2012 at 9:57 am

   Is it acceptable to print out a petition, sign it yourself and mail it in?
   • deano 1.1

     3 September 2012 at 12:39 pm

     yes. the mailing address is on the forms
   • Ianmac from Vietnam 1.2

     3 September 2012 at 3:37 pm

     I printed out a form before I left to go overseas and collected a modest set of family signatures. Even a few help.
     • Bunji 1.2.1

       3 September 2012 at 6:26 pm

       Good work ianmac! Lanth: make sure to grab some friends and family sigs – every one helps!
2. fisiani 2

   3 September 2012 at 1:44 pm

   I’ll take your 250,000 signatures and raise it by 1,058,636 votes.
   • Mark 2.1

     3 September 2012 at 2:14 pm

     You are assuming that all of the 250k are even on the electoral role. Pretty easy to get students to sign up, but they don’t vote.
   • gobsmacked 2.2

     3 September 2012 at 2:23 pm

     @Fisiani

     In that case National can be confident about winning the referendum, right? So they can sign the petition too. More the merrier.
   • Ianmac from Vietnam 2.3

     3 September 2012 at 3:39 pm

     Are you saying that 1,058,636 are in favour fisiani? Sure?
     • mac1 2.3.1

       3 September 2012 at 10:45 pm

       I’ve talked to local Nats here, Ianmac, and they sure as hell don’t want asset sales. So for Fisiani to suggest that all people who voted National voted for every plank including asset sales in their stated policy platform is wrong.

       I actually like to see Fisiani commenting. He is my touchstone, telling me when he joins in, by the simple fact he is joining in as the Blue team’s pinch hitter, what it is that’s hurting the Nats. Right now, it’s asset sales.
   • Lightly 2.4

     3 September 2012 at 3:44 pm

     where’s your petition not to have a referendum?
     • Mark 2.4.1

       3 September 2012 at 3:47 pm

       I think his point was that we’ve already had one. And yes, you lost.
       • Te Reo Putake 2.4.1.1

         3 September 2012 at 3:59 pm

         Well, you’d both be wrong then wouldn’t you? National failed to get a mandate to sell the assets at the last election and, given that NZ is a democracy, what is your problem with testing out the electorate’s views on the specific question of selling them, Mark?
         • Mark 2.4.1.1.1

           3 September 2012 at 4:23 pm

           Many, and varied TRP. Most of which have been well traversed by both sides, and minds are unlikely to be changed on this forum, rather, I suspect they will be entrenched. But I would offer three.

           First, to say that this is “citizens” initiated is a bit of a stretch. Its a political stunt by the Greens who are using taxpayer money to get signatures. The Greens need to own back environmental issues because they show no economic ability. Labour don’t seriously believe in this, they are just passengers.

           Second, the left have an appalling track record on changing things against the public will and without a “mandate”. Your interpretation of “mandate” flows with the tide.

           Third, private property rights are the cornerstone of freedom. The more that is centrally owned and controlled the less freedom we all have. Unfotunately most people don’t really want to be free, they want to be ruled, that’s what slows us down, people voting for more government, which is what you want. Voting for Government ownership is you giving up your freedom.

           Something to argue.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1.1.1.1

             3 September 2012 at 5:51 pm

             Third, private property rights are the cornerstone of freedom. The more that is centrally owned and controlled the less freedom we all have.

             Wrong. The increasing poverty we see is a direct result of privatisation of the commons and that means more and more people are losing the scant freedom that they had.

             Voting for Government ownership is you giving up your freedom.

             Wrong again, voting for more “government” is actually voting to have more say in the community and thus have more freedom.
             • Mark …

               3 September 2012 at 6:33 pm

               Yes, you will be truely free when the government owns and controls everything. Hows that worked out in North Korea?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 September 2012 at 7:59 pm

                 Facile pointless and uneven comparison. A better comparison is Iceland or Norway.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 3 September 2012 at 8:49 pm

                 This is a democracy – the government is us. And that’s where all your assertions that the government is evil falls down. It’s also the proof that privatisation is actually dictatorship as the capitalists take control of everything and everyone’s life becomes dependent upon the goodwill of the owners.

                 It is capitalism that constrains freedom.
               • mike e …

                 3 September 2012 at 11:04 pm

                 mark better in Singapore acshually
           • Bunji 2.4.1.1.1.2

             3 September 2012 at 6:20 pm

             Labour are just passengers?

             Better tell all those Labour activists out spending all their weekends gathering 10s of 1000s of signatures. Guess they’re spending hundreds of hours just for a laugh.

             (And Grey Power whose name is on the referendum petition? and the Trade Unions? and Student Unions? and Greenpeace? All the rest are just passengers too?)

             And Draco’s already pointed out your weird idea of freedom. If you’re only free when you own something, just think of how much you’re reducing the freedom of the rest of us each time you buy something… And then feel the anger of the 99%.
             • Mark …

               3 September 2012 at 7:18 pm

               You’re right, I should not have used “passenger”.

               I should have used bandwagon.
           • Te Reo Putake 2.4.1.1.1.3

             3 September 2012 at 7:22 pm

             Thanks for the reply, Mark. Looking at your 3 reasons, I’d say firstly, it doesn’t matter who initiates the referendum. It’s going to happen and NZ can then have its say.
              
             Secondly, I would dispute your assertion that the left (presumably you mean Labour, when in Gov’t.) have any kind of record of going against the public will, let alone an appalling one. I’ll need some cites for that! 
              
             Thirdly, private property has no relationship to freedom that I can see. Freedom is living well. That can’t be measured by the size of your house, car or TV set, but rather by the size of your heart, I would have thought.
              
             • Mark …

               3 September 2012 at 8:22 pm

               Worth a read

               http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/rights/chap8.htm
               • fatty …

                 3 September 2012 at 8:27 pm

                 can’t really be bothered…is it a libertarian view on freedom? – cause those people are weirdos
                 • fatty …

                   3 September 2012 at 8:29 pm

                   yeah, he is,…I just read the author’s bio.
                   Libertarian views were great if you were living in Texas in the 1850s .
                   But there’s this thing called globalisation now
           • Carol 2.4.1.1.1.4

             3 September 2012 at 7:31 pm

             Third, private property rights are the cornerstone of freedom.

             And that’s worked so well in the US.

             http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief15/index.php

             http://www.economist.com/node/13491933?story_id=13491933
       • Colonial Viper 2.4.1.2

         3 September 2012 at 4:01 pm

         I think his point was that we’ve already had one. And yes, you lost.

         Tip for the wise: its not over till the fat lady sings.
       • Lightly 2.4.1.3

         3 September 2012 at 4:45 pm

         but the majority of people voted for parties that opposed National’s asset sales. The pro-parties only got 48.55% of the vote.
         • Mark 2.4.1.3.1

           3 September 2012 at 4:56 pm

           Idiotic semantics. MOST people voted against Helen Clarke on that measure.

           If you really want to confuse general elections with referendums; then since we have had MMP, only two issues have had anywhere near that support. The referendums on compulsory saving and child discipline. Perhaps you could explain how they went?
           • Nick 2.4.1.3.1.1

             3 September 2012 at 8:05 pm

             I don’t know much about the compulsory savings referendum, not sure where I was at the time but I didn’t vote. A quick investigate online shows that it was part of the deal between National and New Zealand First at NZF’s insistence and National was hardly supportive of it. In some ways though its like having a referendum on whether you like paying taxes.

             The child discipline referendum had a stupid loaded question that didn’t even correlate to the actual bill it was opposing. John Key decided that it made the result meaningless and this is one of the few instances where I agree with him. If the question had been ‘Should children have the same legal protection from assault as adults or animals?’ the outcome would’ve been totally different.

             The current petition will result in a referendum that asks:

             “Do you support the Government selling up to 49% of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?”

             Its not loaded, has no value judgement attached to it and is clear what a ‘Yes’ and a ‘No’ vote would indicate. Actually there is no reason for those in favour of asset sales not to sign this petition as well unless they are scared of where public opinion really lies on this issue.
             • fatty …

               3 September 2012 at 11:06 pm

               “The child discipline referendum had a stupid loaded question that didn’t even correlate to the actual bill it was opposing.”

               True…the whole argument around smacking was highjacked by those dodgy rednecks at Family First. They perverted the concept of freedom. Some others have some warped concepts of freedom as well…

               http://thestandard.org.nz/quarter-of-a-million-signatures-to-keep-our-assets/comment-page-1/#comment-516785
           • mike e 2.4.1.3.1.2

             3 September 2012 at 11:07 pm

             well mark section 59 has been repealed and we are moving closer to compulsory super.
   • Georgecom 2.5

     3 September 2012 at 10:31 pm

     Whatever mate. The signatures will be gathered, the referendum will take place and people will vote. You’ll be able to vote as well. Sure you’ll enjoy the experience.

     Want to throw in any more only vaguely related numbers?
3. georgecom 3

   3 September 2012 at 10:34 pm

   Just to please all the Nat supporters, I’m helping plan 4 days of signature gathering in my city in Sept. Looking forward to 1-2 thousand more signatures being added to the effort. Get ready to vote in the referendum Nat supporters.
4. Balanced View 4

   3 September 2012 at 11:47 pm

   I’ve been trying to think this through (insert witty comment here).

   I have been opposed to the referendum – feeling that it is a waste of money and time. I would definitely have felt differently had National and Labour not campaigned on it.

   However – what seems blatantly clear when talking to those with less than a passing interest in politics (I would guess this includes the vast majority of NZs), is that there is little understanding as to what is involved and the reasons for and against asset sales. Most peoples opinions are built on a gut feeling or defined by the party they always vote for. There has been so much fighting/protesting over the issue that the reasoned arguments have been largely lost to the general public.

   So perhaps a referendum would be a good idea – for no other reason other than to give both sides the opportunity to express the virtues of there preferred position.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     4 September 2012 at 12:00 am

     However – what seems blatantly clear when talking to those with less than a passing interest in politics (I would guess this includes the vast majority of NZs), is that there is little understanding as to what is involved and the reasons for and against asset sales.

     What were the reasons for asset sales?

     Oh yeah, the wealthy don’t want to pay an extra $1B in taxes a year over the next 8 years. So they want to sell our country off instead. That and they are too unimaginative and risk averse to invest their extensive wealth in new businesses in NZ. They prefer the zero risk of buying monopoly assets that the tax payer has already proven works.
     • Balanced View 4.1.1

       4 September 2012 at 12:50 am

       Thanks Viper – precisely my point. So busy attacking those with a differing opinion that the arguments for your preferred position are lost (or not even presented)
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         4 September 2012 at 12:53 am

         $1B a year in extra taxes from the wealthiest in the country, and there would be no need for asset sales.

         It’s as simple as it comes.
         • Mark 4.1.1.1.1

           4 September 2012 at 8:23 am

           So what hapopens when the wealthiest go to Australia as well? Good riddance?
           • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.1.1.1

             4 September 2012 at 8:31 am

             Yep, if they’re too stupid to realise that they’d pay more tax in Oz, then good riddance to them. Frankly, I’m sick of subsidising the bludgers anyway.
5. mike e 5

   4 September 2012 at 1:06 am

   an increase in booze gambling tobacco and fast food tax, also why should we borrow to subsidize these expensive luxuries that cost us in other areas of the economy.
6. Balanced View 6

   5 September 2012 at 12:17 pm

   Just out of interest, if the signatures are gained and a referendum is conducted, if 40% of those that vote chose to support asset sales – are they then granting permission for the govt to sell their share?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS