Saturday, 15 September 2007
Monday, 10 September 2007
TV3 Poll 9-9-07
Interesting results:
National 47%
Labour 37%
Greens 7%
NZ First 3.2%
Maori 1.8%
Act 1.5%
United Future 0.1%
(n.b. assuming that JAP is also 0.1% - not listed)
That transfers into
National 60
Act 2 (Heather Roy will be happy with this result)
United Future 1
Govt. of 63 seats.
Labour 47
Greens 9
Maori 4
JAP 1
Opposition of 61 seats.
What transpires here is that National has a slim majority of 2 seats. Labour is only 3 seats down on the last election results. This result will give Labour hope, according to PM Helen Clark - whose comments (and the video) can be found here. http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/PoliticsVideo/tabid/370/articleID/34332/Default.aspx#video
Nevertheless, this poll is traditionally viewed as "pro-Labour" and yet still National governs, this should be a concern for the Government, especially as the vote for its centrist support parties (many of whom's voters could never vote Labour) have flocked to John Key's National.
Instead of attacking Mr. Key, perhaps Labour could focus on consultation for new-generation policies for example, the further extention of health provision concerning dental care (NZ's rate of tooth decay is sky rocketing, especially amongst those who simply cannot afford to see a dentist), gradualistic extentions to paid parental leave, and a small shifting of tax thresholds.
This will undermine the Opposition who will be actually required to discuss policy, whether they come up with their own ideas or simply come down on the wrong side will be up to them.
National 47%
Labour 37%
Greens 7%
NZ First 3.2%
Maori 1.8%
Act 1.5%
United Future 0.1%
(n.b. assuming that JAP is also 0.1% - not listed)
That transfers into
National 60
Act 2 (Heather Roy will be happy with this result)
United Future 1
Govt. of 63 seats.
Labour 47
Greens 9
Maori 4
JAP 1
Opposition of 61 seats.
What transpires here is that National has a slim majority of 2 seats. Labour is only 3 seats down on the last election results. This result will give Labour hope, according to PM Helen Clark - whose comments (and the video) can be found here. http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/PoliticsVideo/tabid/370/articleID/34332/Default.aspx#video
Nevertheless, this poll is traditionally viewed as "pro-Labour" and yet still National governs, this should be a concern for the Government, especially as the vote for its centrist support parties (many of whom's voters could never vote Labour) have flocked to John Key's National.
Instead of attacking Mr. Key, perhaps Labour could focus on consultation for new-generation policies for example, the further extention of health provision concerning dental care (NZ's rate of tooth decay is sky rocketing, especially amongst those who simply cannot afford to see a dentist), gradualistic extentions to paid parental leave, and a small shifting of tax thresholds.
This will undermine the Opposition who will be actually required to discuss policy, whether they come up with their own ideas or simply come down on the wrong side will be up to them.
Monday, 3 September 2007
Exposing Garth McVicar - Sensible Sentencing Trust
Response to the article in the Sunday Star Times 2-09-07:
Mr. McVicar has recently returned from the United States (Utah) where he viewed a different style of gaol than in present in New Zealand. Tough justice for offenders.
I don't object to this. It is important that serious criminals are made to realise the error of their ways, and that safety of the public is of higher concern than rehabilitation. And the deterrent for offending must be set high.
But jail is not about vengeance, or revenge. It is society's way of keeping troublesome individuals out of the way of the law abiding public. Ideas advocating cruel and unusual punishment such as inadequate food, clothing, or lack of hygiene, and "torture", and even the death penalty - reflect vengeance - not justice.
Mr. McVicar appeals to those who would stoop to breach fundamental human rights in order to seek to vent a vengeful wrath on criminals - and in doing so, give up the human dignity that we celebrate so. But he does not share their 'wrath', but seeks to wield their opinion as a blunt instrument against the Labour-led government, when in fact, the previous National administration enacted little or no measures in response to public demand for harsher sentencing.
As many of us know, there remains for the most part an unspoken bi-partisan convention that crimes are prosecuted according to just law, rather than a public lynching - otherwise why bother with courts? But Mr. McVicar, and the parties the Sensible Sentencing Trust specifically advertised in support of at the 2005 election: quote "Vote for parties who are tough on crime - National, Act, United Future, NZ First" that then advocated policies that broke with that convention.
Why is that important, you might ask? Sure: Either the parties were being dishonest with regard to their policies on justice, advocating this and that, but having no actual intention of carrying it out once achieving office; or, hugely increasing spending on Corrections to house all of the extra inmates, and pushing for the use of methods more commonly associated with Third World dictatorships. Does Simon Power (and the other aforementioned parties' corrections/justice spokesperson still advocate these same ideas?).
Garth McVicar had (and perhaps he still does have) a great opportunity to move the political landscape in favour of tougher (but fair to both punished and the law abiding public) sentences, but by masquerading as a legitimate pressure group when in fact his goal is only to see centre-right government in power demeans those victims whom depend on him to deliver the goals of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Mr. McVicar has recently returned from the United States (Utah) where he viewed a different style of gaol than in present in New Zealand. Tough justice for offenders.
I don't object to this. It is important that serious criminals are made to realise the error of their ways, and that safety of the public is of higher concern than rehabilitation. And the deterrent for offending must be set high.
But jail is not about vengeance, or revenge. It is society's way of keeping troublesome individuals out of the way of the law abiding public. Ideas advocating cruel and unusual punishment such as inadequate food, clothing, or lack of hygiene, and "torture", and even the death penalty - reflect vengeance - not justice.
Mr. McVicar appeals to those who would stoop to breach fundamental human rights in order to seek to vent a vengeful wrath on criminals - and in doing so, give up the human dignity that we celebrate so. But he does not share their 'wrath', but seeks to wield their opinion as a blunt instrument against the Labour-led government, when in fact, the previous National administration enacted little or no measures in response to public demand for harsher sentencing.
As many of us know, there remains for the most part an unspoken bi-partisan convention that crimes are prosecuted according to just law, rather than a public lynching - otherwise why bother with courts? But Mr. McVicar, and the parties the Sensible Sentencing Trust specifically advertised in support of at the 2005 election: quote "Vote for parties who are tough on crime - National, Act, United Future, NZ First" that then advocated policies that broke with that convention.
Why is that important, you might ask? Sure: Either the parties were being dishonest with regard to their policies on justice, advocating this and that, but having no actual intention of carrying it out once achieving office; or, hugely increasing spending on Corrections to house all of the extra inmates, and pushing for the use of methods more commonly associated with Third World dictatorships. Does Simon Power (and the other aforementioned parties' corrections/justice spokesperson still advocate these same ideas?).
Garth McVicar had (and perhaps he still does have) a great opportunity to move the political landscape in favour of tougher (but fair to both punished and the law abiding public) sentences, but by masquerading as a legitimate pressure group when in fact his goal is only to see centre-right government in power demeans those victims whom depend on him to deliver the goals of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Whatever you think of Mr. Zaoui, his religion, and his politics - they are not relevant to prevent a man seeking to settle in New Zealand.
Opponents, have stated that the government should intervene, to avoid risking being seen as a "soft touch", "any bloody foreigner bludging off the taxpayer" etc.
Whatever happened to justice and fair process? Those people advocating the aforementioned views obviously only find democracy and liberty convenient as principles when it suits them. I would be ashamed to have their votes if I was a politician.
The government has no right to interfere in the legal process of immigration, lest it be accused of racism and favouritism.
Mr. Zaoui was never a threat to this country, and those who say he should go should think about leaving themselves. Your views are far more threatening to NZ's liberal democratic system of government than Mr. Zaoui's - who is an educated man, and a campaigner for democratic change in military ruled Algeria.
By cancelling popular elections it was set to lose in 1990, the Algerian government turned the Islamic Salvation Front from a political party into armed resistance, and greatly contributed to the rise of Islamic extremism in North Africa. Mr. Zaoui is simply an opponent of military dictatorship, and when the effort to oust the illegal regime failed, he decided to seek a new life in NZ, so that he and his family could get on with their lives.
A poll conducted on Stuff.co.nz asked voters whether he should be allowed to stay in New Zealand; the reading at 3pm was 31% for, 66% against. This poll only demonstrates an anti-Islamic xenophobic tendency among a select group of voters, who aspire to government, rather than any hint of illegality. In fact, if a poll was conducted on any random innocent Islamic man, it is likely that this theory will be confirmed. If Mr. Zaoui was a white Zimbabwean farmer, convicted in absentia for attempting to destabilise the government, perhaps a minor official in Ian Smith's apartheid-style regime, how many of those now calling for deportation of Mr. Zaoui would change their tune?