By Elizabeth Davies
I’m not a hugely political person, my weekends aren’t filled with political protests, I don’t get giddy when I bump into a local MP in the supermarket and you won’t find me door-knocking, trying to convert anyone who will listen. That’s not to say I have no interest in politics. I watch, I listen and when the time comes I pop down to my local school and cast my vote.
I firmly believe that if you are legally entitled to vote it is your duty to do so. In the 2011 election 42% of 18-24 year olds didn’t vote, compared to 5.2% of those over 65. The figures are not only staggering they are incredibly depressing.
When the budget was released I acknowledged how left out I felt, how it seemed like the government simply didn’t care about my generation. Faced with those figures I’m forced to ask myself a significant question – why should the government care about us when so many of us don’t care enough to cast a vote either way?
The baby bribe budget was a plea for votes. No one is trying to buy our votes because half of us don’t bother turning up to vote in the first place.
The concept of ‘financial security’ is swiftly becoming a joke. My generation's future as employees, business owners, parents, home-owners and ratepayers is being sacrificed in order to buy the votes of older generations. Voting is one of the only ways we have to change our financial future.
For many young people politics is overwhelming, difficult to understand, boring and tricky to relate to. They avoid the voting process because they don’t feel informed enough to make a decision. Others feel daunted by their own seeming insignificance, a single vote is a shout in the void so how could they, as an individual, even begin to hope to make a difference?
I’ve encountered many people who refuse to vote because they have no faith in New Zealand’s political system and politicians. They don’t want to participate in something they so actively dislike, a feeling we can all sympathise with at times given the behaviour of our politicians.
But if you don’t vote you have no right to complain. If you don’t like the way things are then at least attempt to change them, or keep quiet.
Voting doesn’t have to be scary, it can be simple. Decide what matters to you and why, do a little research to find out the parties and people that share your priorities and choose accordingly. An organisation called RockEnrol has been formed by 25 year-old Laura O’Connell-Rapira and 21 year-old Sam Dyson to encourage young people to hit the polls, regardless of who they cast their vote for.
RockEnrol is organising a series of house parties and concerts with Kiwi musicians in the lead up to the September election. The gigs will be free, on the condition that you are enrolled to vote. The movement was created by young people for young people, in the hopes of convincing them of their own political significance and power. They aren’t interested in how you cast your vote, they simply want you to cast it.
Our government can only be changed from the inside and we can’t affect something that we refuse to participate in. The only wasted vote is the one that goes uncast.
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Davies is a 24 year-old graduate of the Auckland University of Technology post graduate journalism course. She lives with her partner in Epsom and spends her free time refurbishing vintage furniture and attempting to bake while fighting a daily battle against her bank balance. She writes a weekly article for interest.co.nz on money matters and financial struggles from a young person's perspective.
65 Comments
nonsense. Why vote if all options are unattractive?
And if we don't vote, we lose our right to complain? Oh, start my own party and campaign for the policies I think important? I couldn't think of a more futile action.
My advice for under 35 year olds is to do what is financially best for you. Ignore distractions like politics, and pop-culture, and find a way where you can make money and save a lot. Choose the right field, or go overseas.
Ignore propaganda like: 100% NZ, kiwi ingenuity, buy kiwi made, kiwi this and that. These are distractions to make you think you live in the greastest country in the world. It ain't great if you don't have any money to enjoy the place.
Instead, work on generating a surplus. If you are without dependants, and in your 20's, and you can't save at least 20K a year, then you need a new plan.
This Elizabeth Davies is getting up my nose.
All she does is whine and whinge that she hasn't got some sort of handout as if it was a God-given right.
The same theme turns up in each of her articles "what's in it for me?" without the slightest suggestion that she in turn is obliged to put something back into the pot for the common good.
In fact I believe there is no "Elizabeth Davies" at all.
More likely she is a "he" paid to stir while hiding behind a skirt to make it harder to criticise.
Will the real Eizabeth Davies please come forward and reveal himself.
Elizabeth, I am one who welcomes your point of view. As grumpy old men (GROM), you either grow in intollerance or understanding. Many here represent the "get ur hands of my pile" tribe,
They cant help themselves from devolving into a rant, theyre actually powerless.
However many GROMS do value your voice , so keep feeding it to them / us.
I sympathetic with you, being forced "Clockwork Orange" style to read her articles while strapped to a chair as classical music plays.
I tend to feel it is our job as citizens to keep those in power honest. Voting is one of the tools to do that. Not to vote is a dereliction of that duty.
The best case is there is someone you actively want to vote for. The worst case is you can vote for the least worst to encourage others to get your vote by being even less least worse.
Ah, but the problem is GenY, that the Big Daddy's of this world are only in it for themselves as well - hence, for example, his objection to anything like taxing all of his income. He's quite happy for the primary basis of taxation being a tax on wages .. the wages you likely earn and he doesn't (not that he is not accumulating wealth, however).
Of course the majority of humans are in it for themselves, until such time as they accumulate enough not to need any more for themselves - and in our neoliberal world they then become philanthropists, like Gareth Morgan, trying to put the gains they got that went untaxed to some better purpose.
That's not a criticism of Gareth or Big Daddy, just a statement about the way of the world. Big Daddy doesn't want capital gains taxed because he still needs them - he's still accumulating for his own survival, whereas Gareth is already a wealthy-enough man.
The point is that we boomers had it so good we really had no idea - there was an abundance of fish in the sea, jobs for everyone, cheap energy, wages high enough in comparison to the cost of living such that one partner could stay at home to raise the kids if we were so inclined, free tertiary education if we wanted it, state houses if we needed it and affordable health care. In my youth - there was no tomorrow - not one that needed worrying about any way!
Nothing wrong with wishing such good future fortune on the youth of today.
It actually depends on how you look at it Kate......Are we Individuals who make up a collective.....or a Collective of Individuals?
Socialism likes the Collective of individuals it is easier to control and manipulate and dangle carrots at. Socialists can break down the collective into lots of small herds by age, qualification, employment, earning bracket etc.
Then there is the other side of the coin the Individual who make up a collective. Socialists dislike Individuals as they are harder to control, manipulate and dangle carrots at.
Big Daddy is obviously not afraid to do things on his own i.e. be the individual that he is.........he rightly protects the position of Individual independence.
Gareth slots into the Collective of Individuals.......he wants policies that protect that position........as he doesn't have to then think about the real Individual that is part of the collective......
Good fortune comes from one's own efforts if it is to be truely enjoyed.
There is no long-lasting pleasure or enjoyment from individual enforced redistribution to the collective as under the surface the recipients knows they didn't earn it. A collective of Individuals feel entitled to redistribution by their past effort as they think they paid it forward......but forgot about the debts that also accrued. The Individual who makes up the Collective is very aware that they are left carrying the debt load of the system yet are expected to be self-responsible in all aspects moving forward.
If the young of today want "good future fortune" then they won't fall for the Collective of Individuals nonsense that has been ingrained upon the populace.. They will use the Individual Collective to drive change if they are smart.....not to get a share of the status quo but to make sure they get their due rewards from their own efforts.
The BB actually lost their independence as they handed much of it over to the State......this issue would horrify their parents who fought for Freedom for all......they turned society into the Collective of Individuals......from the previous Individuals who made up the Collective. My Grandparents who went through both the 1st and 2nd world wars warned me over these issues when I was a child/teenager in the 1970's......rather ironic that they could so adquately foretell the future......or maybe they just knew how repetitive history really is. Maybe the old saying 1st and 2nd Generation make it and 3rd break it applies. When these young people start voting en masse they will have their parents backing as their parents who have been a minority of voters brought them up as free independent thinkers who were left with the Government tab in the 1980's......(another no hand-outs generation) and when the two combine there could well be significant change.
We live in a society, we choose to as that has advantages. That started off with tribes back 10s of thousands of years ago, can but assume we learned teh hard way the most efficicient way.
Not just socialists, capitalists like the same thing.
I have no issue with independance the problem is often the consquences of an individuals actions are not. Take Ireland lots of building on the spec of making money and when it imploded the Govn had to bail them out, result the tax payers faces decades of pay back.
Lots of the rest of this is your opinion as a libertarian, frankly that is a very few ppl.
I odnt agree onthe "horrified" in fact you are utterly wrong IMHO. The parents of BBs voted out Churchill after WW2 and voted in the welfare state, they didnt want the return of the "gilded age" between the wars they faught hard for something better. Certainly my grandparents and parents views greatly differ to your views.
You are wrong on the direction of significant change...not in the direction you think but the opposite...
regards
Yeah well my grandfather who fought in WWI returned to become the president of the pulp and papermakers union where he made his home in Canada - and during WWII he tried to join up again, but was turned down by the recruiters, telling him to go home and finish raising his 7 kids. So, he started the first Boy Scout troop in the area and taught the youngsters how to march - as a collective of individuals, I assume!
I disagree that we have learnt or evolved at all from doing things the hard way.......we still have tribal rule and we are inefficient.
You do have an issue with independence you just don't acknowledge it, that is why you like Socialism and regulation it is a safety net for you if you fail. You have a conflict in your views in your post. If you like independence how can that align with a welfare state being something better? You can't be both independent and dependent at the same time.
I think a more reasoned approach to understanding the welfare state is to acknowledge the issues that a welfare state has created. Irelands bailout is an example of welfare state interference. That is what a welfare state does it deems itself a necessity by picking a cause.
I could well be wrong on the direction of change that will be taken after all it's a numbers game. I do however have 3 children who are all in the 20's and they have numerous friends in the same age grouping. They are a very free thinking bunch and frequently discuss many of the issues that surround them and their generation. I am also aware that the parents of these children broke down many societal controls that used to be in place. Religion and heavy handed controlling parents was once the norm now they are a minority. I don't think the young ones today take those freedoms for granted. The age of children being seen and not heard, do as I tell you not as I do are over.......and as a society we don't quite yet know where this will lead us.......but I have a hunch.
I think you attempt to conflate social welfare with corporate welfare - they are not one and the same.
Better to use the language "social welfare" (well being) and "corporate largesse" (gift giving). The welfare safety net exists for the prviate individual, whereas the corporate largesse exists for the private collective, if you want to use your concept/language.
You seem to be implying that corporate largesse is simply another type of social welfare. Most certainly it is not.
Anyone who receives any financial benefit is receiving Social Welfare........it is what it is and you can try as hard as you like to put specifics in place and re-label them according to your box you place them in but it wont make any difference to the outcome will it?
It is receiving someone elses money that you have not earned yourself!!! It is putting someone's well-being over another persons well-being and then justifying your position by the label you attach to them.
It all amounts to theft by compulsion.......and never acknowledges the persons circumstances that the force of compulsion was used against.......recognising one individual as having more rights over another is dangerous territory.
It is all largesse as it is all a gift to another party.
There was nothing in this budget for me either, but I can look at the bigger picture and see positives for the wider community i.e. cheaper doctor visits for sick kids. I can't and won't rely on the possibility of getting something from any govt of the day - instead I choose to work hard and do the best I can with the cards I've been dealt - not easy but alot better than whining. If you and your family have your health, live in a safe secure home (mine is rented not owned) and can put healthy food on the table - it's so much more than alot of other less fortunate people have. Casting your vote is not always about me, me, me!
I think she's right - politicians know that the boomers and older vote, and will always try and buy those votes. They seriously don't bother with gen x or younger, because A) there aren't as many of the x'ers as there are boomers and B) young people are notoriosly bad at turning out to vote.
And budgets do seem to be geared toward the golden oldies, or the already wealthy. It's always the middle earners, the poor, the disabled and the young that are sacrificed...
It's not that Elizabeth is looking for a "hand out", I think she's just looking for a fairer deal, for a deal that stops her generation being financially sacrified.
Before you are happy to denigrate her point of view: rememeber it's her generation that's paying for your super, and your gold card.
I think most people in the younger bracket that think about such things realise there is a high likelihood there won't be a pension and if there is it won't be until we are 75+. I console myself that you boomers will start to lose some numbers through natural attrition soon and we might be able to vote some of your cushy benefits off ya. Let’s here you winge then.
realise there is a high likelihood there won't be a pension and if there is it won't be until we are 75+ You poor wee darlings. I am technically (just) a baby boomer. 15years ago MOTH and I believed that there probably wouldn't be a pension for us (and it's still a possibility that if Labour gets in, the age for us will be raised) so got to and set ourselves up on the basis that there wouldn't be. You have years ahead to sort yourselves out - so do it. Take responsibility for yourself.
The elderly are a dying race and in the future there will be many less than there are now - but that will also translate to fewer jobs. So before you get all celebratory about BBs dying off, give a thought to all those who work in elderly related industries - their jobs may just die with the elderly. ;-)
Casual Observer,
Yes, but the War Generation (those born during the war years) and the baby boomers have an advantage over those of my generation. You had three decades of rising wages, appreciating housing values, and easily accessed credit in order to accumulated savings (both from the government and the banking industry), while Generation is faced with stagnant wages except in a narrow section of industries, house values which put home ownership beyond our reach, and capital controls such as the Reserve Bank LVR rules.
Though I am Generation Y I think it a little cold to discuss the deaths of my parent's generation in such terms. My parents didn't do so well out of Rogernomics as many of their compatriots though this wans't due to lack of hard work or profligacy on their part, in fact they're two of the most hard working, prudent and thrifty people I know. Now enjoying a well deserved retirement. In any case I wouldn't want to rely on any inheritancey from them to guarantee my future, because seeing the outcome of the familial struggle over the legacy left by my grandparents, only family discord, greed, arguments, and resentment are the result.
In saying that I a little apprehensive about my retirement prospects due to a mixture of bad luck, poor decisions, and a noncomformist streak, I'm not in a position to fund my own retirement should there be no pension available when I come of age. Others are likely to be in a far worse position than me, and often through no fault of their own. Prospects are looking bleak for the average person.
Anarkist - My reply was to PeakEverything especially their comment: I console myself that you boomers will start to lose some numbers through natural attrition soon and we might be able to vote some of your cushy benefits off ya. Let’s here you winge then.
Interesting that you are happy to make broad generalisations about the advantages of the war born and baby boomers, but go on to say 'My parents didn't do so well out of Rogernomics as many of their compatriots'. I would suggest that your parents are not a minority in the baby boomer set. It is nice to hear they are enjoying their retirement. Sometimes less, really can be more.
My view on inheritance is very similar to your own and for similar reasons. My parents are still alive so just as well I wasn't counting on an inheritance by now. ;-)
You made/make your choices - it's never too late to start again. I have seen some amazing changes in women (baby boomers) who were married young (as you were back in the day), stay at home mums, who got the 'silver divorce paper served on them' (after 25+ years of marriage), went out and got training, and have made themselves a comfortable life. Some will never be 'rich', but they all will be ok.
Forgive me, for I get pissed off reading these arrogant, thoughtless comments about baby-boomers, from unknowing people when there are dimensions that are never acknowledged.
There were 12,000 New Zealanders who died in WW2 who never had the opportunity of producing their own baby-boomers
There were a lot more returned-serviceman who returned seriously injured, unable to lead a productive life, unable to acquire and pass on the worldy benefits assumed by so many, some of whom also never had the opportunity of producing their own baby-boomers
Then, there were the examples of 4 males in my family who served in the forces, 2 Royal NZ Air force, 2 Royal NZ Navy who had the good fortune to return. Not necessarily to good health, Two of them died before reaching the age of 50, 1 died before the age of 60, and only 1 lived long enough to receive the old-age pension. His children inherited a small but adequate bequest of not particularly large size.
Three of them left widows with young children to struggle along on widow's pensions, to keep family together
We were a close family. We had to be to survive. For the 3 families, none of the aquisitions or benefits or munificence so glibly attributed by the various commentators here who were either very lucky, or as I have thought for some time, many are blow-in migrant boomers from other places, who have reaped the rewards left behind by others.
No large inheritances in our families. Just hard-scrabble struggle-street.
So Anarkist, explain what advantages we enjoyed over those of your generation
Elizabeth Davies, come interview me, I'll tell you what sacrifice was like.
iconoclast,
I don't know why you took particular exception to my comment. In my view in terms of arguments made by others in such a fraught subject, mine was pretty even and measured.
Perhaps it would have been more productive to have engaged me on the actual content of my argument rather than flying off into a completely different tangent unrelated to my argument.
My grandfather on my mother's side also served in the War and was interned in a German prisoner of war camp. Sadly he passed away when I was very young, though my impression that he was haunted by his experience, though he was fortunate I think not to be captured by the Japanese. My mother he said very little about life during the war years, which is completely understandable.
I was actually talking in strictly economic terms. You can't argue that the period from the late 1970s to 2008 wasn't a period incredibly conducive to accumulating savings and capital.for the War Generation (those born between 1939 and 1945), given that their earnings potential peaked between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s a period notable for high returns on capital and easy credit for those with adequate collatoral and earning prospects, not to mention they were beneficiaries of generous government programmes such as the State Housing Advances prior to the Rogernomics reforms.
For baby boomers and to a certain degree Generation X, the mid 1990s until the Global Financial Crisis was a fortuitious periods, with low inflation due to the entrance of China into the global market, a period of little major armed conflict until 9/11 which underpinned low energy prices, and easily available credit due to development of the international integrated monetary markets and loosening of global financial regimes.
Sure peopole were able to take advantage of opportunities granted by those fortuitious times to a greater and lesser extent. My parents for example. They're regular people, willing to expect little more than the opportunity to work hard, have prudent spending habits, and save as much they could given their very modest earnings. But there are many, many others who have exploited poor land development and taxation policy making on the part of successive governments to build tremendous wealth.
My generation on the other hand have been saddled with continually escalating education costs, high student loan burden, stagnant wages, poor jobs prospects due to extreme employment competition thanks to poor government educational prioritization and migrant policies, and the prospect of shouldering the burden of an underfunded social security liability in the form of the baby boomer generation once it retires. All this is merely compounded by the discrimatory Reserve Bank LVR policy, to ensure affordable home ownership is well beyond the reach of the average Generation Y.
Casual Observer while the ultimate decisions are made by individuals, the choices that they make are heavily influenced by the prevailing social climate. It was government policy to encourage young people that upon graduating from secondary school they should pursue tertiary education with the rationale that otherwise they're employment prospects would be constrained. They turned education into a commercial enterprise with providers ignoably compromising on the delivery of their service in order to attract students and therefore funding from the government only too eager to dispense a largess in greater and greater amounts in order to placate their voters. (I don't know why greater expenditure on education was considered a good thing by the voting public. It just seems bizarre. I guess one would expose themselves to accusations they're an anti-intellectual philistine if one were to make a stand against education spending After all education is a universal good, isn't it?.)
Educational providers were incentivised by government funding to prioritise courses like the humanities which were both popular and cheap The more funding they receive the better they are able to justify generous salaries and funding for research for their tenured faculty.
This has enabled employers to divest themselves of the need to provide training and invest in the skills of their workforce, and the burden now falls on the shoulders of the individual worker. The dire consequences are compounded by the ability for firms to hire skilled migrants from countries which have provided free education to students where educational funding is better targeted.
Anarkist, I was talking economically also. While my comment is thru the prism of my own experience, the point I'm making is, when you remove or eliminate the bread-winners from families you gut those families economically for at least one possibly two generations. They dont have the opportunity to experience the fulsomeness of the economy around them, they dont have the "wholesome" benefit of the wisdom of the family unit to plan their "dynastic" future or take advantage of "times of plenty" - so as I read your comment I sit back and wonder "where the heck was I when all this munificence" was taking place. We certainly weren't out pissing it up against the wall
I'm not arguing that many families in New Zealand personal disadvantages that didn't allow them to take advantage of the prevailing economic conditions. My family was fortunate in that respect, though my parents raised my brother and I without the support of either of my grandparents who either died before I was born or when I was very young.
The prevailing economic climate and conditions are fundamentally different from that of the pertiod from the mid 1970s until 2008. New Zealand was a fundamentally closed economy. which insulated many from the turbulence and cut throat competition of the global market whilst citizens received generous assistance from the State, until the 1980s from whence it incrementally opened to the world, in fits and starts. Now the economic evolution has reached its inevitable conclusion. With very porous barriers to capital and immigration, my generation are almost fully exposed to competition for jobs and assets from competitors in markets where the participants face fewer constraints on raising capital, wealth building, business practices, and gaining marketable skills and knowledge (free education).
Hey if you're inclined to dismiss my comments as typical Gen Y self-entitled whinging then that's your affair, but hopefully others may find the discussion about the challenges faced by my generation to be fruitful and informative.
Well said CO.......it is what we all do as an individual that matters.......
I think the Government should have a clearly defined role, the carte blanche that is the status quo has too many failures. We get too many people falling through the cracks and losing their independence becoming self-reliant on the State instead. Many young people see this as a problem in our society and maybe that is the one of the issues that this generation of people will address.
Social obligation is a topic that is rarely discussed in New Zealand and debate on this issue is long overdue. Personally I can accept the obligations that are written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights........it is how the obligations have been interpreted by Governments, bureaucrats and public servants that is the problem. Very few journalists and academics bring these issues to the fore which makes me wonder about the competence of their thinking patterns. Or maybe they have personal agendas where they are benefiting from the status quo and would never bring the issues out iin the open.
I always find it interesting that the 1688 Bill of Rights granted ancient rights to the people it then identified those ancient rights as freedom and liberty. The social contract between the State and the People is broken due to the many carrot dangling corrupt.
Casual Observer,
"My reply was to PeakEverything"
I know, I was trying to convey that not all Generation Y think like he does. Perhaps I should have been more specific as to whom I was addressing.
"Interesting that you are happy to make broad generalisations about the advantages of the war born and baby boomers, but go on to say "
I was making a generalization abut the broader economic climate which one can't argue weren't advantageous for the very reasons I noted. People naturally take advantage of the prevailing economic conditions to a greater and lesser extent. Essentially the period can be described as particularly conducive for the incumbent. Those already with substantial wealth, those with political connections, in demand skills or education, or in the context of fishing quote, those who were already operating in the industry were given free retrospective quotas while new entrants had to pay.
"You made/make your choices - it's never too late to start again."
That may be, but I had the luxury of making choices for good or ill. I had a pretty good foundation. Family life wasn't perfect, but at least i had stability. Had good role models and examples set by my parents. Not everyone has that privilege. Especially for those disadvantaged by family background or whose prospects are constrained by social expectations.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11249785
I dont usually read Elizabeth Davies articles
They can be a good reflection on how the individual behaves or views things
This article is a good reflection of that
However, are things really all that different than yesteryear?
I'm not sure that they are
As David Chaston points out in item #8 on his Top 10 at 10 today, you have to be careful when publishing anything while avoiding any enquiry into the facts and obtaining actual data
What sticks out in these articles is, Elizabeth has a platform, holds the microphone and thus has the power
What would be worthwile seeing would be an interview (by either David Chaston or Elizabeth Davies) of an elderly baby-boomer who is retired, suffers from ill-health, doesn't own their own home and lives on a pension
Never seen one, have you? It's called balance
It is wrong to blame others for your own misfortunes. How can Baby-boomers be blamed for the poor turn out?
Your best option is to send a Big message to National and Labour. If all the young ones voted for any third party and left the main parties struggling to form a coalition.
By the way, i woild like to see everyone do the same. We are all sick of the system.
The baby boomer generation saw a lot of change during their life time. WWII had ended, there was a clash between the generation that came before them and themselves ('68 student revolution, the Vietnam War protest, anti-nuclear bomb protests, etc...). Change of the guard, really. It made them more politicially engaged and aware - and especially so when they realised that by sheer number they could and were making a difference.
Generations that came after them could just not compete with their numbers. it's easy to keep turning out to vote when you know your vote will make a difference, especially if it's the difference you want.
It's very disheartening if you vote and vote and vote, and it always seems like a wasted one.
People just give up - there doesn't seem to be a point.
But I agree with you - I think we should vote for the smaller parties, and send a message to the 2 major players, that can't be denied.
I, too, am sick of the system.
In recent years we have had a number of referenda that incumbent governments have completely ignored. Similarly, strong public opinion by way of various polls are similarly ignored. It is therefore hardly surprising that voters particularly the younger and left leaning ones feel disenfranchised and don't see the point in voting. It doesn't seen to matter who they vote for, they get saddled with governments that pursue their own agendas at either end of the political spectrum, at the expense of the centre and centre left voters. Of course this suits National as their voters can be relied on to vote, however the traditional centre left voters are being turned off in droves at the expense of Labour et al. What did they say on Q&A? 1 million lost votes largely in the centre left of the spectrum.
If Labour had any sense (which is a moot question) they would taylor part of their election campaign arround pledging to strengthen the power of referenda and similar strong public expressions of opinion. (binding referenda for example) Would they ever do this? Probably not because are just as bad at pursuing their pet agendas at the other end of the political spectrum in the face face of public oposition. At the end of the day however it will be Labour that will loose the most by this behavior and Nationals hand will strengthen. Labour risks loosing it's constitiuency and becoming irrelevant
^
That... is pretty much the only reason I'll be voting for the conservative party. The lack of democracy from both Nats and Labour regarding referenda is something in the neighbourhood of an arrogant 1st world dictatorship. Conservatives are so small they are unlikely to get any policies through except their bottomline policy if they are in a kingmaker position, and their bottomline policy is binding referenda.... so win win. How about a government actually represents the people that vote them in for a change.
An interesting article followed by a variety of responses
Here is another perspective on why people don't or won't vote.
It comes from an observation of unfolding events over the other side of the creek.
While it's not New Zealand, the underlying symptoms are germane
Give the following your serious attention and see if it alters your perspective
In the State of NSW, over the past 2 years, there have been 7 investigations conducted by ICAC (Independent Commission against Corruption) an independent body charged with investigating corruption within the (state) government. New Zealand does not have a similar institution.
The people being investigated and the findings have been breathtaking. The people investigated have been parliamentarians and lobbyists. The first 6 investigations all dealt with corruption and property and land leases and mining leases and water rights. The last, investigation, number 7, involved corporate donations and funding to the National Liberal party using slush funds and money laundering (what does that remind you of)
These investigations have uncovered the close associations between politicians and property developers, property developments, zoning, approvals, backhanders. (what does that remind you of) More than 80% of all corporate donations come from property developers or coporations who have a significant investment in property ie Westfield Shopping Centres, Metricon High rise city developments, and Ramsay Health Care Retirement villages, among many others.
This has raised significant concerns among the voting populace how non-voting institutions are controlling the elections.
In Queensland, a Queensland mining billionaire, Clive Palmer, has not paid any taxes in the past 6 years. Two years ago, prior to the last Queensland State election he donated $½ million to the State Liberal-National party election campaign. The Nationals were duly elected.
Prior to the last Federal election he formed and funded a new Federal Party called the Palmer-United-Party or PUP, who managed to get 6 members elected. The AU electoral system is made up of a lower house and an upper house similar to America. The PUP holds 4 seats in the Upper house or Senate. Remember this is a person who has not paid any taxes in 6 years, yet now controls the balance of power in a country of 22 million people.
There are two print media organisations in Australia, Newscorp (Murdoch Press) and Fairfax Media. During the public hearings Newscorp remained silent and never reported the progress or the outcomes, while Fairfax Media reported the investigations fully, without which nobody would have even known what was going on.
Interest.co.nz frequently reports the goings on of the Chinese economy, politics, and businesses, but has never commented about the above. Again silence.
Fairfax Media's sister New Zealand organisation has never reported 1 centimetre of coverage of these goings on, even though Stuff.co.nz frequently reports goings on in Australia. This topic has remained off-limits. NZ Herald - no coverage.
This is all verifiable via google and Sydney Morning Herald www.smh.com.au
As an aspiring journalist you should be most interested
Very interesting and relevant. And as I said above; the more that the average voter is ignored, the more disenfranchised they feel and the less they will be inclined to vote. It is a fair bet that this affects the left side of politics more, as the right wing voters will be more inclined to vote whatever. This becomes a positive feedback system for the right wing, ie the more that they ignore the interests of left wing voters, the less that they are inclined to vote and therfore the more margin the right wing has to abuse the left wing voters.
The most powerful way that the left wing political parties can mobilise support is to convice voters that they will be taken notice of as opposed to ramming equally unpalatible far left wing policies down their throats. Making referendums binding would be a good start.
Chris, I'm not exactly who the "average voter" you talk of is ? If he/she truly is the average, then I'd say he/she and their hundreds of thousands of mates would be a dominating force at the ballot box. Perhaps the "average voter" isn't average at all, he/she's is just someone who isn't getting their way ?
I think the real joe and jane average is the swing voter and they do indeed get their way as they are an increasing % of ppl (in a way). Therfore both the left and the Right have to appear to "pander" to this voting "block" in order to get elected. The reality is both main parties are not central in the least and dont care about teh center. So its ironic that indeed there is no real central party for this block, and that this central voter seems to pick up the tax burden while both the poor and the rich seem to do nothing but take (note Im being simplistic here).
I sometimes wonder if some ppl couldnt sit back and look at this block and draw up a set of political beliefs as a party to meet this large block and gain significant seats. I guess its likely that unless you are commited enough (and hence extreme enough) to want to "get things done" that there simply isnt the political will in such a person(s) in this block, they just want to get on with life.
regards
I think that Grant may have a point in questioning what the average voter is or whether it is a meaningful term. Peoples views are probably more diverse and make the concept of averaging a bit meaningless. What we do seem to agree on is that the main political parties play at appearing to pander to the so called ""centre"" while acting as much as possible in the interests of the far left or right of their respective parties, and in doing so leave a lot of people feeling dissenfranchised. My point is that it is the left leaning voters who will react to this by not voting and therefore this behaviour of both parties is probably favouring the right.
Incedently I have no investment properties, just the houses that I live in and if I could have my way the only owner of houses would be the people who occupy them.
I see, panicking over the value of your housing investment, well so says a far right voter. Weird point of view in terms of position frankly, shows how far right you are.
Not the left side but left of National, yes as the swing voter is fairly central. I'll agree that the left voter (which is different) probably gives up, in the past as that does appear to be the case. However looking at the Green's vote I'd suggest that a decent % of Labour left vote has gone there, seeing Labour is pandering to the centrl swing vote and not them. I mean I cant see that a big % of the vote has suddenly discovered being Green. I dont see that as a bad thing for Labour, if they get thier act together and go for the central swing vote takingmore off National. If they dont and its looking like they fail, well then National wins. Assuming the maori party still goes with national...and they look like imploding anyway.
Referendums can be abused aka california...not so sure they should be binding....the election vote is that and its every 3 years.
regards
(Offensive and irrelevant comment deleted, Ed. You can see our commenting policy here - http://www.interest.co.nz/news/65027/here-are-results-our-commenting-po…)
I don't think pollies give a toss how many votes they actually get, so long as they get at least one more vote than anyone else.
I'm sure if an electorate had a voter turnout of one, the guy who got in wouldn't be losing sleep over how few people voted, he'd be congratulating himself over how he managed to secure the vote that counted.
LOL, cynical or what.
;]
I would certianly agree on some Pollies, I'd hope however that some somewhere would take a drop in voter numbers as an indication on how bad many voters seem to consider them. However the replies I have seen fromt hem seem to indicate they want compulsory voting (like OZ?) which really hides the very point, a failure of their part to connect IMHO.
regards
Or maybe its that you dont like a rebuttal of your often un-supportable views and are attempting to abuse this to get it squashed.
Debate often is robust, and I certianly take some flak. Iif you think its out fo line by all means say so at the time by return I'll either amend it, retract it or stand with it.
regards
Ah there you go throwing out veiled abuse, so you can hand it out but dont like taking it.
In terms of views I try and reach them based on research, my own, others, facts and data. I will also change my view if the facts etc change.
So feel free to counter what I say but support a rebutal with data and links, I'll change my mind if its a good one, can you?
"track record" yeah right, more than happy to stand on my decisons etc.
regards
Yet more veiled abuse?
I dont bet, certainly not blindly (well unless cornered). Frankly looking at Labour or National makes no odds, both are yesterday's party in terms of the world has changed and they refuse to accept it. and I mean refusal...they know.
That means whichever party is in power when we drop off the crude oil production plateau more people are going to get more hurt than needed.
Stick that "guess" on my track record for review, time frame <2020 (probably).
regards
Well that really is disappointing. The post was highly relevant. There are several comments in this article that are gross use of fallacy and quite frankly insulting to the reader. If Elisabeth finds my comments a bit hard hitting (offensive?) then she needs to up her game.
My conern for interest.co.nz is lightweight content that can only be seem to be chasing ratings, it might make revenue but it demeans the site.
Such BS all this younger generation 'our parents had it better'
I am Gen X - I have easy credit, massive capital gains & a top tier job. Be smart, dont wait for hand outs. What do you expect the government to do...go to your job interviews for you?
The reason people feel disenfranchised is that they buy an Apple iPhone, go to the pub, rent SKY, spend thousands on overseas holidays and then say - 'Hey..I cant afford a house'
And if you have not done these things and still dont have enough money for a deposit (and are able bodied) then you need to think long and hard about what your doing with your job and money.
Well if that is the case we can expect a whole lot more "woe is me and my generation" articles. I am Gen X - I work hard and get on with it (no point in wailing and whinging) - My son is Gen Y he laughed when I showed him this Elizabeth's article and is banking on his own skills and ability to get him to where he wants to be in life.
There's also a bit of a difference between early and late gen-x. I'm a late Gen-Xer (a few months off a Gen-Y) and certainly have done it tough despite getting a good education and forging a good career. In ways some of the Gen-Xers had it tough in that they missed out (JUST) on the early 2000s housing boom as they were studying and were still paying 7% on their student loans!
As a graduate working in 2004, I had a choice to buy a house or pay back my student loan ($30k), given I was paying $40 a week interest on that loan back then (a lot of money on a graduate salary of <40k) it made sense to pay off the loan. Few months later Auntie Helen made loans interest free and the housing market took off..... worst financial move of my life!
While I'm not subscribing to the woe-is-me school of thought and I'm certainly in agreeance that some of the younger ones have a heightened sense of entitlement, they're certainly not all "wanting houses in Herne Bay for $400k".
It's undeniable that in the 2010s, three of the four main necessities of life are significantly more expensive relative to incomes than they were in the 1980s and 1990s (Of the Food/Clothing/Water/Shelter, only clothing is cheaper). At the same time, many of the "luxuries" of life are much cheaper (travel, entertainment, technology etc). This breeds a perception that the younger generation wants to have their cake and eat it. The reality is that however you slice it, housing is a LOT harder to get into now than it was a decade or two ago.
Elizabeth, you are quite right. Anybody born from around 1970 onwards has had a rough deal from successive governments from 1984 onwards but I do think you are looking at it from the wrong end. The baby boomers are to blame but it was the economic system they imposed on the country from 1984 onwards that did it. The baby boomers got everything. Our parents and grandparents voted for policies that insured that that would happen and yet when we got into power we did the absolute opposite. It was and is terrible to see what has been done to the young of this country over the past thirty years. So, Elizabeth you should vote but only when you get a party who has policies that will enable you to achieve what the baby boomers were able to achieve. Some will still achieve. But not in the numbers the baby boomers did. At the monent the dice is loaded against you.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.