13 more reasons to vote for change

The notoriously inaccurate* Horizon poll gives 13 more reasons to ditch MMP:

A Horizon poll of 2874 people is projecting National on 46 seats in a 122-seat parliament, and Labour and the Greens on 50.

That leaves 26 seats to decide the government and, according to Horizon, Winston Peters’ New Zealand First is on track to take up to 13 of them.

The 13 are: 1 a charlatan, 2 who? 3 a man best known for alcohol induced bladder weakness. 4 who?, 5 who? 6 who? 7 who? 8 who?, 9 who? 10 who? 11 who?, 12 who?, 13  who?

* The poll’s results are very different form all others and Keeping Stock and Whaleoil explain how easy it is to manipulate them.

21 Responses to 13 more reasons to vote for change

  1. robertguyton says:

    Character assassinations and smears from the polite and respectful Ele! What’s up with that???
    This is unpleasant, Ele and uncharacteristic. Are you sure you want to leave those comments up?

    Like

  2. homepaddock says:

    I have never had any respect for NZ First or it’s leader and neither are deserving of it.

    Like

  3. Northern says:

    @ Robert: that’s a bit rich coming from you and your mob with your latest scurrilous letter to young Mums saying “Under National you won’t be around to celebrate her first birthday”. That is not merely unpleasant but outrageously nasty.

    Like

  4. robertguyton says:

    Northern – ‘my mob’ are Green. Regarding the Labour ‘letter’ – is it true that solo mums are being forced to seek work when their child turns one?

    Like

  5. Northern says:

    @ Robert: My apologies. But surely most working mothers return to work after maternity leave well before their baby turns one? And anyway, that’s no excuse for Labour’s threatening accusations!

    Like

  6. robertguyton says:

    No problem Northern. Is the letter addressed to working mothers or does it target mothers on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, do you know?
    Also, are you sure this is a Labour Party letter? Not a fake, is it?
    I’ve not seen anything about it on their sites.

    Like

  7. ScottY says:

    Have all National-affiliated bloggers been instructed by Head Office to attack Winston this week?

    Just wondering.

    Like

  8. bulaman says:

    Met Richard Prosser at a candidate meeting who is at 4. Agri background.

    Like

  9. Northern says:

    @ Robert: at first I too questioned its authenticity (with Whale) but it seems to be a genuine Labour letter – appalling.

    Like

  10. Northern says:

    @ScottY: I’m not a National-affiliated blogger but I happily concur with their robust attack on Mr Charlatan Populist Peters. Have you seen his manifesto? Never-ending bribes for anybody and everybody without any indication of how he’d pay for them. Totally irresponsible! And with his track record I’d never trust him – could you?

    Like

  11. robertguyton says:

    Did someone show you evidence that it was from the Labour Party, Northern?
    It has a full National Party logo on it. That seems odd in a flyer from Labour.
    Maybe your initial instinct was good.
    Do you agree nonetheless, that it discusses out-of-work mothers, rather than the working mums you thought it was for?

    Like

  12. Northern says:

    See the photo @ Keeping Stock – it includes more text and a Labour authorisation. Okay, that might not be 100% proof, but it looks pretty convincing to me. And no, I didn’t think it was aimed at working mums, I was just saying that if it’s good enough for working mums to return to work after their maternity leave, why should beneficiary mums be allowed so much longer before even starting to look for work?

    Like

  13. Scotty says:

    John Keys’ focus on policy, didnt last long, back to what National does best, fear mongering and personal denigration.

    Like

  14. Northern says:

    @ Scotty: Pot calling the kettle black perhaps?!

    Like

  15. Scotty says:

    Northern .
    I wouldn’t be that hard him ,
    He’s realised,that to talk National policy ,is to lose votes,
    so its back to whats worked for him, misinformation and vague slogans.

    Like

  16. robertguyton says:

    Northern – you ask, ‘why should beneficiary mums be allowed so much longer before even starting to look for work?’

    Well, perhaps there are no jobs for them.
    Perhaps they are under-skilled.
    Perhaps the do not have enough income to pay for childcare.
    Perhaps they are pregnant again.
    Perhaps they don’t have, as a working mum may have, a previous job they can go back to.
    Just a few ideas there, Northern, that might be influences on an unemployed mother of a 1 year-old.
    Had you considered any of those? There are others. I’m no expert in the field and those are just off the top of my head.

    Like

  17. Northern says:

    @ Robert: Ele has already corrected me: “For the record, National’s welfare policy is to introduce the obligation to seek part-time work when the youngest child turns six.” Not one at all (except for those mums having repeated kids while on the DPB, which is where the one year old might be affected). Buy yes, you are right in saying that many such mums might not have a previous job to go back to, and jobs are scarce (for everyone). But the new “obligation” is simply that they should start looking and preparing for a return to the workforce. If they really cannot get a job then of course they will continue to receive their benefit. I can’t see anything wrong with that.

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    You can’t, Northern?
    How might you feel, I wonder, having spent a year with your baby and all that can mean (exhaustion, problems uncounted, pressures, sleeplessness etc, with perhaps other young children to manage (2year-old, 3-year-old etc.) being required to go go out and search for work you know is not there, that you are unqualified for or that has so many applicants you have no hope of getting. Inspirational stuff, eh! Back home at the end of the day, to a situation that might be appalling by your standards, Northern, and all the while feeling pressured that your benefit might be cut off, because you have failed to meet the requirements of ‘searching for work’. Cheering stuff, eh! I wonder if this scenario is what the ‘letter’ is alluding to?

    Like

  19. Northern says:

    Robert, for me all our benefits are there to give temporary support to those in need and should not be permanent pay for those who could support themselves. (In other words I do accept there are some folk eg invalids who will be on a benefit for the long term.) Sure, DPB mums can have it tough, but the domestic challenges you describe could also apply to many working mums.

    Like

  20. robertguyton says:

    Ummm..not all of them, Northern. Not having a job to go to, for example. Kind of a biggie, I’d have thought. Not having a history and habit of working, that too. Not having a supportive network of people who are in employment… there are a lot of added difficulties for an unemployed mother. It’s not really my field of primary interest, so I’ll leave the discussion now. I was only hoping to show that it’s not clear-cut, by any means, and that there are difficulties that you and I may well not have considered and it’s a bit hoha of us to blithely make pronouncements about their situation.
    Cheers for the (polite) discourse.

    Like

  21. Northern says:

    @ Robert: Ditto – reciprocated respect! And good luck for the Greens’ advocacy on environmental issues with our new Government. I think you made much more progress with the Nats over the last 3 years than you did under 9 years of Labour!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: