Comment of the Day

Consistency would be nice.

When National won the election on a platform including partial asset sales, the Green Taliban said that the fact National didn’t get more than 50% of the eligible vote, they didn’t have a mandate.

Flegin, one of our commenters puts the same theory to the test on the referendum result.

So basically going by the Green/Labour method of vote counting there is no mandate to cease asset sales as only 30% of the eligible voters are against it.

That settles that then.

UPDATE:

Another pearler, from reader Michael, just this morning:

Some perspective:
2009 CIR to repeal smacking law changes had 1,470,755 votes jn favour
1999 CIR to reduce the number of MPs to 99 had 1,678,054 votes in favour
1999 CIR for tougher sentencing for criminalsvhad 1,886,705 votes in favour

Given the CIRs that the Greens and Labour don’t support have far more support than their one, will they be changing policy to reflect popular support?

  • dilligaf2013

    Never let the truth get in the road of a good story

  • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Keeping Stock

    FACT: LabourGreenNZFirstMana’s vote, plus the Maori Party was 15% less than their cumulative party vote in 2011.

    FACT: Just 29% of eligible voters voted “No”

    Apathy rules, and the country’s coffers are $9m poorer; thanks for nothing Dave, Russel and Metiria!

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/the-9-million-waste-of-time-and-money.html

    • Phar Lap

      Well said and well done to tell it like it is.Certainly a kick in the slats for Cun*liffe the chronic manifest liar,not forgetting the cross dresser Norman,throw in “honest”Len .All in all, the corrupt trio have taken a beating in the last 24 HOURS.

  • toryboy

    The socialists have a very long history of claiming there is no mandate for anything free enterprise, capitalist or non socialist.

    They have a long history of claiming they have a mandate – when the number of votes suggests otherwise – simply because they consider themselves “morally superior” because they are working for the common good.

    It is also interesting to note how many in the National party are so weak and feeble they appear to AGREE with the socialist line.

    Is Mr Key saying “oh yes the greens and socialists are right, but we have done it now and can’t be changed” …..or is he growing a pair and saying “too bloody right we sold them! and we should sell everything else too – government should not own businesses because that is morally wrong and evil”

    • blokeintakapuna

      The cloak of sanctimonious faux moral outrage has strange powers …

    • dilligaf2013

      It was pretty pointed when John Key said at the last election not to vote for National if you don’t agree with selling 49% of some assets – this will be the referendum. Muppet Central and the Green Taliban just couldn’t let it go and as there is nothing else to complain about (except getting compensation to Pike River families and ignoring all the dead forestry workers) as the country is being run better than most other western economies.

      • Cowgirl

        I reckon if we get some better workplace safety standards, we’ll be doing ok. They literally don’t have anything else to knock the government with, and I’m hoping some decent economic results next year will lead to them getting rinsed again in the election.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Horribly inconvenient for them having their own logic used against them. Great comments…

    NB: having ventured only once to the dark side, saw and experienced the calibre of comment and debate there… I’m truly thankfully we have WO… And some exceptionally clever and talented commentators contributing. It’s awesome!

    • dilligaf2013

      Well said that man

    • Cowgirl

      The dark side truly is a scary place – made a comment on TV3’s site again last night and got trolled again! They only seem to have loonies on there!

  • Rod

    There is a lot of false logic applied to voting percentages and mandates. To vote for any political party at a general election does not imply support for ALL of that party’s policies. It simply means that the voter has decided that voting for that party is the best option for the country. Unfortunately, this conclusion is often reached not because the favoured party is great, but because the alternative is worse.

  • Eiselmann

    The left of course are spinning this for all its worth , knowing full well the majority of New Zealanders didn’t feel the issue warranted their time to vote in this referendum. As has been commented before only 30 percent of v

  • cows4me

    I could have a very small pinch of pity for them if they had supported the people’s wishes in the pervious CIR’s. Of course the results didn’t suit their political agenda. Here’s an old saying for you clowns ” live by the sword die by the sword”. Let this be a good lesson for you clowns, the rules don’t change just because your side wants to alter the game.

  • Apolonia

    I look forward to Russel and David announcing their support for the repeal of the undemocratic anti-smacking law.

    • Tiberius

      Have a Tui!

  • LesleyNZ

    What about the anti-smacking referendum – what was the percentage of eligible voters compared to this one and the results.

  • Pissedoffyouth

    I saw my old man last night – he doesn’t really follow politics but he ticked No on the form purely because it didn’t have the option of selling 100%. I was quite impressed – maybe he reads WhaleOil?

    • Phill

      He wasted his vote and gave Russell something to crow about then.
      Your story is just more evidence that the whole thing was a waste of time and money.

  • Col

    Who cares, I have told you bugger off I m the PM. Waste of $9000000.00 and the Greens want to GOVERN?

102%