.
.
July 19 – Yesterday, I received this poll, sent by TVNZ to my email.
What I found very interesting were some of the question relating to issues that have not been discussed – literally – for decades. The question regarding free tertiary education is again an election issue. This is something we can attribute directly to the rise and rise of the Mana-Internet Alliance.
The questions (and answers I gave) are presented here as screen-shots. (Only the final two pages are not included, as they contained some personal responses and details. My preference for which Party I will be endorsing with my Party Vote for will be the subject of an up-coming blogpost.)
.
.
.
It is a shame that the “anti-smacking” question (above) was put without real reference to what the law actually states. If people actually knew the actual nature of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, they might be more inclined to vote as I did. It is a fallacy that the repeal of Section 59 banned all smacking and is a deliberate distortion promulgated by neo-conservatives and religious right elements in our society.
.
.
I responded somewhat “lukewarm” to the question about compulsory Kiwisaver (above). The problem of compensating low-income earners and beneficiaries should be taken into account along with implementing compulsion. Forcing the poor, who might be currently living in garages and unable to afford even the basics, to save for Kiwisaver would be an untenable proposition and a farce.
.
.
I voted “strongly disagree” to the proposition that high income earners should not receive superannuation. We have been through this issue before and it was blindingly obvious that high income earners simply hid their money by clever accounting tricks – thereby avoiding cuts to their super.
Targetted superannuation invites the growth of a labyrinth of rules, exemptions, asset-income testing, and an associated invasive bureaucracy. Better to have Universal Superannuation, alongside a comprehensive progressive tax rate that claws back super-payments by slightly higher marginal tax rates.
And the final tranche of questions;
.
.
It is interesting to note that questions regarding tax cuts were omitted. I would have liked to have seen what New Zealander’s attitudes toward cutting taxes would have been. Especially if the question was framed as a choice between more tax cuts and less social services.
Now that would really have been a barometer of our nationwide psyche!
Now we just have to await the outcome of this poll…
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Those questions are in a similar vein to those on the http://www.politicalcompass.org site.
“Especially if the question was framed as a choice between more tax cuts and less social services”
Frank please dont conflate these two things together. Any currency sovereign government (such as in New Zealand) can choose to spend more on social services without raising additional taxes. Choosing to defer additional spending pending a tax increase is both a good way of eroding support for the government and delaying support for those who most need it.
I was interested in the Vernon Small item on “Cunliffe a liability – poll shows”, on Stuff, which doesn’t allow comments, by the way. Although the article is long on the opinion poll results, the interview clip at the top doesn’t at all tally with what he says. Just about all those interviewed, were not worried about who lead Labour, would vote Labour regardless, would not vote National if Key were not leader, or would not vote National at all – very revealing.
Loud silence on the question of cannabis user’s rights, even after Internet/Mana endorsement.
I’m disappointed but not surprised.
It looks awfully like NACT and the hollow men pulling the strings on this poll-survey, which will morph into a manifesto PD 16th September (Post Dotcom Town Hall meeting), 4 days out from the election.
It’s knee-jerk. opportunistic politics, like the banning of synthetics, like Key securing an All Black game in Samoa, like National ignoring asset and electoral reform referanda and why Paul Henry won’t even get the wet-bus ticket treatment for his sexism and right-wing Benny-Hill-Rolf-Harris-Jimmy-Saville gobshite. It’s having the kudos of a seat on the Security Council, but not having a credible, or cogent or coherent view on Israel invading Gaza, or killing women and children.
Put your right-wing finger in your mouth, wet it, hold it up in the air and see which way the political winds are blowing.
Depending on the results, either build a wind-break (ie create a new reality like Sir Peter Gluckman re-defining and changing the narrative on childhood poverty), or get Slater to huff and puff and create a vile windmill – implying that Tania Billingsley honey-trapped the Malaysian alleged rapist.
It’s right-wing media management – the muppets at Media Works [sic] would be proud of it all.
Dialey, it’s amazing how often the headline screams something negative about Cunniliffe or Labour, when the actual story is more balanced.
Like the headline has been written by the chief editor.
And it is important what the headline says coz many people only read the headlines
Comments are closed.