Politics, Intrigue, Referenda & Economics

[speights boy]

In a nutshell to answer your question i think she is going off on a legal speak tangent much the same as Geddis.

Yeah, all that legal speak tangent stuff...eh.
It's not as if we are discussing how the laws of this land are enacted, or any of that legal tangent stuff.

[mrsaneperson]

The binding referendums do work in other countries. Like any system ,nothing is perfect but the worse alternative is to stick with our current broke system which will continue to ignore the referendum results at the huge expense of democratic opinion..

[speights boy]

Like any system ,nothing is perfect but the worse alternative is to stick with our current broke system which will continue to ignore the referendum results at the huge expense of democratic opinion..

And yet he wanted to force this system upon us by means of some back room Govt coalition negotiation.
Then enacted by possibly only one vote in Parliament.

He even stated he would not rule out doing a deal with Labour if they agreed to his demand for BCIR and National didn't.
How is that listening to "democratic opinion" ?

[drelly]

Its not about the rights & wrongs side of a question. It is simply about the erosion of democratic principles & society.You believe that voters are too stupid to know better & that you should be making that choice for them ,that is the main reason why you dont support the referendum concept. And i am not referring only to one referendum alone but a series of referendums that the govt has chosen to ignore results everytime. Binding Citizens Initiated Referendum would not be up for policy discussion if arrogance & dismissal of referenda results were not the hallmarks of our existing government.
The title of the thread here is "Which political party will benefit property investors?". Whatever benefits the wider community & part of that is referendums to uphold democratic opinion, will ultimately provide a greater good for ALL, including property investors.

Conservatives were the only party campaigning for that principle.

You're so entertaining. Unlike you, I'm not going to tell you what you think. I'll just respond to what you actually say.
If we're back on track about democratic principles, you'd have to agree that a biased referendum question (regardless of what that question is), is not a good idea? No?

[Perry]

It has been NZ First policy for many years.
Just ask any of the eleven MPs.

I think they had even more than eleven,
for one term. I don't recall there being
any evidence of Winston First pursuing
the matter once they were in parliament.
Do you?

[mrsaneperson]

You're so entertaining. Unlike you, I'm not going to tell you what you think. I'll just respond to what you actually say.
If we're back on track about democratic principles, you'd have to agree that a biased referendum question (regardless of what that question is), is not a good idea? No?

No one system is perfect. The phrasing may have been better but it does not negate the fact that the vast majority of people casting their vote opposed the anti-smacking bill. You are suggesting that somehow due to the phrasing of the question there was a mass propaganda effect and so therefore the referendum results were totally flawed. Be rational.

[mrsaneperson]

And yet he wanted to force this system upon us by means of some back room Govt coalition negotiation.
Then enacted by possibly only one vote in Parliament.

He even stated he would not rule out doing a deal with Labour if they agreed to his demand for BCIR and National didn't.
How is that listening to "democratic opinion" ?

Democratic opinion was in favour of BCIR .Not ruling out a deal with any party can be seen from different perspectives. Most probably if Craig had gotten in ,he would have remained outside any coalition deals since neither National or Labour really wanted him .

SB i'm picking you were not on the side of the majority opinion support for any of the 5 referendums that the government ignored, therefore because you were overly happy that the govt ignored the democratic opinion, you loathe the BCIR policy.

My conclusion based on the fact that BCIR is only a "grave" concern to anyone who was of a minor opinion representive aligned with an absence & disregard for due democratic process. I nominate Key as public enemy no1 in this regard.

[drelly]

The phrasing may have been better...

And that is the whole point. It was biased and led people to vote a particular way. Whether or not that particular vote would have got the same result (regardless of percentage) is not what is being discussed. OH. MY. GOD. Do you understand now?

A citizens initiated binding referendum is highly prone to manipulation, just as the article by Muriel Newman points out. You can keep banging on about "what people want" all you like but the fact remains that they are flawed. Do you remember the 1997 Government referendum on superannuation? The vote was something like 91% against. The media and Labour (who were in opposition) destroyed any chance of that going through. I was working in financial services and spoke to dozens of my clients about it. Not one of them actually understood the issue and almost all planned to vote against it for reasons that were factually wrong.

[mrsaneperson]

And that is the whole point. It was biased and led people to vote a particular way. Whether or not that particular vote would have got the same result (regardless of percentage) is not what is being discussed. OH. MY. GOD. Do you understand now?

A citizens initiated binding referendum is highly prone to manipulation, just as the article by Muriel Newman points out. You can keep banging on about "what people want" all you like but the fact remains that they are flawed. Do you remember the 1997 Government referendum on superannuation? The vote was something like 91% against. The media and Labour (who were in opposition) destroyed any chance of that going through. I was working in financial services and spoke to dozens of my clients about it. Not one of them actually understood the issue and almost all planned to vote against it for reasons that were factually wrong.

It did not lead people to vote a certain way; recent surveys conducted showed the huge sentiment against the bill was still very high.So that proves you wrong.You need to get out more Drelly & ask random folks what they think of the anti-smacking bill . Its clear you dont believe most NZers genuinely dislike the anti-smacking law in droves. The only way you can cure your "In Denial" is possibly talking with randomly selected folk & not within your own political persuasion thinktank. Though it might pay you to take some diplomatic protection squad with you as i'm sure you will get some flak.
The other part of your comments you clearly demonstrate that everyone else is always so confused about the issues except yourself.
Now in a nutshell you know there is a definition for that.

Now i can lead you to water ,but i cant force you to drink...

[drelly]

It did not lead people to vote a certain way; recent surveys conducted showed the huge sentiment against the bill was still very high.So that proves you wrong.You need to get out more Drelly & ask random folks what they think of the anti-smacking bill . Its clear you dont believe most NZers genuinely dislike the anti-smacking law in droves. The only way you can cure your "In Denial" is possibly talking with randomly selected folk & not within your own political persuasion thinktank. Though it might pay you to take some diplomatic protection squad with you as i'm sure you will get some flak.
The other part of your comments you clearly demonstrate that everyone else is always so confused about the issues except yourself.
Now in a nutshell you know there is a definition for that.

Now i can lead you to water ,but i cant force you to drink...

I really think you struggle with logical thinking. Don't you realise that the results of any referendum do not prove on their own one way or the other whether or not a referendum question is biased and leading? And you keep rabbiting on about what people think about anti-smacking when I haven't actually been discussing that with you, have said I don't want to discuss that with you on this thread and at no stage have disagreed with the the points you keep making about the results anyway. Also you're repeatedly telling me what I think, which is usually the complete opposite of what I've actually said. It's like you want to have a debate in isolation to what anyone else says. You don't need a forum for that, only a mirror! Just. Plain. Weird.

To get back to the actual topic...

It did not lead people to vote a certain way...

Here is the question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

There is obviously an assumption in the question; "good parental correction" and you don't think it was in any way biased or leading? Both John Key and Phil Goff (who was Labour leader) refused to vote on this question, and variously described it as "ridiculous", "ambiguous", "wrong" and "badly worded".

[mrsaneperson]

OK so thats fine if Key & Goff didnt like the phrasing of the question its a simple solution ,just vote YES. After all the debate about any disagreement about the phrasing of a question; voters still know exactly what the referendum purpose is about ;and thats all that really matters drelly.The voters were not propagandised by the question. As repeated previously recent polls have shown the mass majority hate the anti-smacking legislation.You pigeon hole people into the "stupid category" simply because they disagree with you ,but get out and talk to others outside of your thinktank & you will find they generally dont share the same opinions as yourself on many of the referendums we've had & thats the sole reason why you dont want referendums [BCIR] because you know you'd be marginalised. So your goal instead is for the wider voice of expression to be marginalised .A dictator in essence.

Democracy IS something which you are clearly against.

[drelly]

OK so thats fine if Key & Goff didnt like the phrasing of the question its a simple solution ,just vote YES. After all the debate about any disagreement about the phrasing of a question; voters still know exactly what the referendum purpose is about ;and thats all that really matters drelly.The voters were not propagandised by the question. As repeated previously recent polls have shown the mass majority hate the anti-smacking legislation.You pigeon hole people into the "stupid category" simply because they disagree with you ,but get out and talk to others outside of your thinktank & you will find they generally dont share the same opinions as yourself on many of the referendums we've had & thats the sole reason why you dont want referendums [BCIR] because you know you'd be marginalised. So your goal instead is for the wider voice of expression to be marginalised .A dictator in essence.

Democracy IS something which you are clearly against.

O-kaaaay. I guess you just don't understand what I'm saying because you keep repeating what you think I think (which is wrong) and you don't seem to realise that your points aren't even relevant. I'm done.

[Wayne]

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

No and I believe the current legislation supports that.
Now a smack in anger or retaliation is a different story.
And a beating different again.
Needs definitions doesn't it? What is a smack, what is good parental correction?

So the question is open to lots of interpretations so when a person answers yes what are they really meaning?
A bad question as Drelly suggests!

[Meehole]

Check out Family First video of 10 examples of where good people had children removed from their care or were not allowed to continue caring for a child (even if a grandchild) because they may have not only smacked the child but inferred that it would be a form of discipline that they would use.
All those that voted YES should be forced to watch the video.

[flyernzl]

Can we get this discussion back on to the subject please?