![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 29, 2005, at 18:34:29
this year is an election year over here (nz).
just thought i'd share :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 4, 2005, at 4:43:14
In reply to election year, posted by alexandra_k on June 29, 2005, at 18:34:29
The way it works... You vote for your local MP and they get a seat in parliament. So that is your local vote.
You also vote for the party that you want to have the majority of seats in parliament and they need 5% of the party vote to win one seat in parliament.
So the thought is that the people we want get there, and the ultimate proportion of the seats each party gets is determined by the proportion of the people who voted for that party.
With local votes there is typically a race between 2 (or possibly 3) candidates - so most people feel it wise to choose between the front runners. With your party vote you just need to get 5% of the country to agree with you and that party gets one seat.
I'm quite fond of the greens:
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
Labor has the majority vote at the moment. So they got to pick the prime minister (Helen Clarke). If labor and the Greens decide to join up and form an alliance (as they tend to) in parliament then they get to swing the vote their way and overthrow the conservatives. Labor is left wing and the greens are left again.
http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
The next bunch are the main rival for labor. More to the right. They are trying the 'we will lower taxes and get the bums off welfare' line.
http://www.national.org.nz/About/standsfor.aspx
And these people are a riot. They are verrrrrrry similar to national - but Winston Peters is a very dynamic and controversial leader with a lot of support over in Tauranga (so he is guaranteed the local seat). Whether many of his cronies will get to join him is a different matter...
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/principles/index.php
And here he is trying to do away with the Treaty of Waitangi! Ha!
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/message/show_message.php
There are others....
Relatively minor - but might get a seat or two!
Posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2005, at 16:04:04
In reply to Re: election year, posted by alexandra_k on July 4, 2005, at 4:43:14
The Greens have backed down on their push for decriminalisation of cannibus. Basically... Labour has said 'no way'. The Greens wanted to make their post-election alliance with Labour conditional on that policy. But its not going to happen. The Greens need that alliance more than Labour does (they are more left wing than Labour so there is no way they can form alliance with the conservatives)
So they are plugging for instant fines instead.
Nope. Sell outs :-(
I might just have to make a Labour vote this year....
The Greens have their heart in the right place (mostly).
I like their pacifist stance.
But Labour fairly much are anyways.
National is putting their foot in it rather.
The media cited Brash (leader of the National Party) as saying the nuclear free policy would be 'gone by lunchtime' if the Nats get the majority.
He was also caught saying that he would have done the same as Bush with respect to the Iraq situation... heh heh. He's been asked about it since and he says 'thats not a current issue, the current issue that people should be focused on is this govts waste of public resources' (i.e., welfare). Even when he was told that it was a current issue because he was being asked about it now he was determined that it did not count as a current issue!
Ha!
Labour has decided to get personal.. 'The nats aren't to be trusted'...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 1, 2005, at 17:42:16
In reply to Re: Boo Hiss, posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2005, at 16:04:04
well. i know nobody gives a sh*t really but its important to us over in this little corner of the world.
so that stuff about the greens was more random thoughts than anything else...
the greens have been terrific for getting environmental issues taken seriously. they managed to get that one back on the agenda. aside from that... i dare say they won't get more than a seat or two (and thats because their leader will get the coramandal seat with all the dope growers up there and another seat is typically won regionally). they won't get enough of the party vote to get more than that...
so basically the situation is labour vs national.
and the lay of the land is.....
particular policies change... the general spirit tends to remain the same, however. so lets have a little look at that.
NATIONAL
thinks that people should get to keep more of what they earn. clearly if you are a big earner then you are a hard worker and you are entitled to that money. their motto is 'a hand up - not a hand out'. by which they mean that welfare is not a priority. by 'new zealanders' they mean working new zealanders. so they promise tax breaks for those in the highest income bracket. where are they going to get the money for the tax breaks? by cutting social services, of course.and the implicit assumption here is that people are equal from birth and have an equal chance to make something of their life...
some people choose not to...
they take advantage of the system...
those people should be cut off...LABOUR
thinks that those who need the most assistance are families with dependents. so tax breaks for the middle income families. they are a bit more into redistributive wealth - tax more from the poor to raise the revenue to make sure that the poor have their basic needs met.labour are in power at the moment.
its true that there have been many f*ck ups with social services budgets. polititions and managers making very poor use of money that is supposed to get to the people. management problems. problems with respect to how the money is best spent...But... imo they have their hearts in the right place at least...
it is just that they need to spend that money on intervention. psychologists and educators and social workers etc to get some real community and family intervention going on... and they could do more of that if they spent that money a little more wisely.
if you cut welfare then what will happen is those people will resort to crime to make sure their basic needs are met.
thats more young new zealanders growing up in an environment of crime. thats more people in jail. thats more rich people having to build f*cking barbed wire fences around their properties in order to keep the people who are stealing to survive off their property. more muggings. more crime.
would you rather live in a society where you are rich and others are living in horrible environments struggling to meet their basic needs
or would you rather live in a society where you are less rich (but still well off) and others are getting their basic needs met with the opportunity to get more than the basics by employment?i reckon thats the decision...
thats the choice to be made...
it f*cks me off when i hear people making their voting decisions based on what THEY are going to get.as an example national has promiced to meet minimum repayments on student loans for graduates who remain (and work of course) in nz after graduation. if you stay in nz forever that means you never have to pay back your student loan. there is a problem currently of graduates leaving to get better pay overseas.
labour has promiced to wipe interest that acrues when you are earning under the threshold (typically you acrue interest while you are studying and if you work over summer you could have a hefty repayment due which is mostly interest)
and students are voting on 'what do I get???'
f*ck you (no offence)
what is best for society as a whole?
what kind of country do we want to live in????
Posted by alexandra_k on September 2, 2005, at 21:19:03
In reply to Re: election verrrrrrrrrrrry soon, posted by alexandra_k on September 1, 2005, at 17:42:16
what kind of country indeed...
because you never know what is going to happen...
some random act of god
some leveller
and then all your hard work might just count for sh*t
and who will help you
who will help?
when clearly the people who have
have earned it
and those who have not
don't deserve iti can't believe this attitude.
:-(
but maybe it takes growing up in poverty
living in poverty
to see...to see just how hard it is to find a way out of that.
and to see that some people never really do have much of a chance.
and that is not fair.
and that is not acceptable.and the injustices in this world make me want to heave.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2005, at 18:55:27
In reply to Re: election verrrrrrrrrrrry soon, posted by alexandra_k on September 2, 2005, at 21:19:03
> but maybe it takes growing up in poverty
> living in poverty
> to see...
> to see just how hard it is to find a way out of that. and to see that some people never really do have much of a chance.
> and that is not fair.
> and that is not acceptable.Though of course it doesn't take living in poverty to see that.
Its just that it may well make it a whole heap easier. More relevant I suppose.
Posted by rainbowbrite on September 4, 2005, at 15:33:15
In reply to Re: election year, posted by alexandra_k on July 4, 2005, at 4:43:14
hey cool!
Found that very interesting.
thanks for the update/info
Posted by rainbowbrite on September 4, 2005, at 15:38:14
In reply to Re: election verrrrrrrrrrrry soon, posted by alexandra_k on September 1, 2005, at 17:42:16
> well. i know nobody gives a sh*t really but its important to us over in this little corner of the world.
well i do :-)
> so that stuff about the greens was more random thoughts than anything else...
>
> the greens have been terrific for getting environmental issues taken seriously. they managed to get that one back on the agenda. aside from that... i dare say they won't get more than a seat or two (and thats because their leader will get the coramandal seat with all the dope growers up there and another seat is typically won regionally). they won't get enough of the party vote to get more than that...
>
> so basically the situation is labour vs national.
>
> and the lay of the land is.....
>
> particular policies change... the general spirit tends to remain the same, however. so lets have a little look at that.
>
> NATIONAL
> thinks that people should get to keep more of what they earn. clearly if you are a big earner then you are a hard worker and you are entitled to that money. their motto is 'a hand up - not a hand out'. by which they mean that welfare is not a priority. by 'new zealanders' they mean working new zealanders. so they promise tax breaks for those in the highest income bracket. where are they going to get the money for the tax breaks? by cutting social services, of course.
>
> and the implicit assumption here is that people are equal from birth and have an equal chance to make something of their life...
> some people choose not to...
> they take advantage of the system...
> those people should be cut off...
>
> LABOUR
> thinks that those who need the most assistance are families with dependents. so tax breaks for the middle income families. they are a bit more into redistributive wealth - tax more from the poor to raise the revenue to make sure that the poor have their basic needs met.
>
> labour are in power at the moment.
> its true that there have been many f*ck ups with social services budgets. polititions and managers making very poor use of money that is supposed to get to the people. management problems. problems with respect to how the money is best spent...
>
> But... imo they have their hearts in the right place at least...
>
> it is just that they need to spend that money on intervention. psychologists and educators and social workers etc to get some real community and family intervention going on... and they could do more of that if they spent that money a little more wisely.
>
> if you cut welfare then what will happen is those people will resort to crime to make sure their basic needs are met.
>
> thats more young new zealanders growing up in an environment of crime. thats more people in jail. thats more rich people having to build f*cking barbed wire fences around their properties in order to keep the people who are stealing to survive off their property. more muggings. more crime.
>
> would you rather live in a society where you are rich and others are living in horrible environments struggling to meet their basic needs
> or would you rather live in a society where you are less rich (but still well off) and others are getting their basic needs met with the opportunity to get more than the basics by employment?
>
> i reckon thats the decision...
> thats the choice to be made...
> it f*cks me off when i hear people making their voting decisions based on what THEY are going to get.
>
> as an example national has promiced to meet minimum repayments on student loans for graduates who remain (and work of course) in nz after graduation. if you stay in nz forever that means you never have to pay back your student loan. there is a problem currently of graduates leaving to get better pay overseas.
> labour has promiced to wipe interest that acrues when you are earning under the threshold (typically you acrue interest while you are studying and if you work over summer you could have a hefty repayment due which is mostly interest)
>
> and students are voting on 'what do I get???'
>
> f*ck you (no offence)
> what is best for society as a whole?
> what kind of country do we want to live in????
>
Again, very interesting and sounds frustrating
Posted by rainbowbrite on September 4, 2005, at 15:41:01
In reply to Re: election verrrrrrrrrrrry soon » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on September 3, 2005, at 18:55:27
election day?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2005, at 15:48:23
In reply to when is, posted by rainbowbrite on September 4, 2005, at 15:41:01
couple of weeks yet.
Posted by Damos on September 4, 2005, at 17:27:30
In reply to Re: when is, posted by alexandra_k on September 4, 2005, at 15:48:23
First time over here and just look what I've been missing :-)
Sadly it just sounds so much like here except we don't have anyone as dynamic as dear old Winston, and the Aboriginals don't really have much of a voice at all (the only aboriginal senator having lost his seat at the last election due to his party's pathetic performance at the polls).
Seems like the mojority on both sides only stand for their own self-interests and those of their 'mates' who fund their campaigns. The Greens here basically just oppose everything and seem to have no idea that people need to have jobs in order for the country to be able to function. The Labour party have become a rabble with a third time recycled leader who have completely lost the plot.
Politics in my state NSW have just hit an all-time low with the leader of the Liberal (conservative) opposition having been de-stabilised from within by stuff leaked to the media (apparently by peoplpe loyal to the PM), leading to public humiliation and resignation and a suicide attempt. Thay are all just beneath my contempt.
Just like NZ they seem to think the only way to fund anything is to screw over the most disadvantaged and marginalised members of society. GGRRRRRRHHHHH
Oh yeah. You're a damn fine political commentator Alex.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.