Don’t vote for chaos

The choice is clear: continuing stable government that’s working for New Zealand and New Zealanders or chaos:


If you’re not already convinced what any government beholden to Winston Peters would be like, listen to Guyon Espiner (at 7:18) attempting to get a straight answer from him.

New Zealand First is likely to get at least 5% of the vote. Labour’s weakness would give him strength.

The higher National’s party vote is, the stronger its negotiating position will be and the more stable the government will be.

6 Responses to Don’t vote for chaos

  1. Neil says:

    Despite your exhortations HP I think this election is going to be decided by the usual political ignoramuses who make up about 10% of the voting population.
    Listening to simplistic ten second sound bites, a grouch about the government or just a sore back. These are the people that will finish off this election.
    A thought. I believe is that we in the south have no idea really of what goes the minds of people north of the Bombay Hills.
    Listen to Willie Jackson and Alison Mau on Radio Live, their conversations completely settle on that northern NZ perspective. Their ringers are maori, especially Tai Tokerau and the battle between Harawira and Davis.
    National is seldom mentioned in any conversation, Jackson is actively pushing the Cunliffe line.
    We in the south feel none of these currents. A tale of two nations perhaps !


  2. Quintin Hogg says:

    Voted yesterday as busy with kids tomorrow and removing hoardings tonight.
    2 ticks for the nats (of course) as has been the case since MMP came in.


  3. murray grimwood says:

    Neil – astute comment.

    and if you track/project the demographics, you see where it goes with time.

    Labour are a remnant of the old union/bluecollar types, all aging. There was an intelligencia/egalitarian echelon, but they’ve morphed into voting for them-individual-selves, or Green. Leaves the rump high and dry, and dying off.

    National will do OK while individualists (specialisation is the Achilles Heel of a cohesive society; nobody does the overview and even if they did, the specialists won’t have the background knowledge to ‘get it’) are trucking, but that momentum has to go pear-shaped within the next Term. It’s already on life-support (sorry, quantative easing).

    Then the worried will cross the centre, running for state-help-me comfort. Which it won’t deliver, being under the same constraint.

    Then either we get outside-controlled completely, or we address the real issues. That required societal understanding of the Limits to Growth, the Tragedy of the Commons, and perhaps the Jevons Paradox. If we get there – and I can’t see it happening, it would have already – then it won’t be about Parties. It will be about a mature society, and an across-the-board understanding, irrefutably held.

    Not holding my breath………..:)


  4. Willdwan says:

    “Not holding my breath…”

    Yeah, we’ve noticed.


  5. Andrei says:

    Despite your exhortations HP I think this election is going to be decided by the usual political ignoramuses who make up about 10% of the voting population.

    Is that a statement hubris?

    Or is the true figure for “ political ignoramuses” closer to 90% or even higher?

    And what does being informed on “the issues” mean?

    Are the “issues” only those matters of concern to the urban elite ivory tower dwellers?

    I’ll tell you something, any Parliament that legislates for “gay marriage” has actually lost touch with reality, a nation is built by its people is its people and they are conceived by men and women bonded together to create families, the atomic unit of a prosperous and peaceful society


  6. murray grimwood says:

    chuckle. yep, there was an ignorant comment like that in reply to an ODT Editorial. Said marriage was something between two people.

    It’s a silly minutae in the great scheme of things, but I pointed out that it actually includes – and alwys has – a third party. Church, State, or both. You could also argue peer-approval is another involved party.

    Real relationships betwee two folk are actually just between the two folk.

    But folk often ignore inconvenient facts; ones which, if acknowledged, lead to the understanding that their preconceptions were flawed.

    Goes for any subject. Some people will fail the test more often than others, which suggests perhaps that their whole ethos may be a tad awry.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: