Sunday, June 14, 2009

Are Mt Albert voters that boring?

I would have been pleasantly surprised and astonished had Julian Pistorius won, but the Mt. Albert result was disappointing. However, I guess an electorate that ticked Helen Clark consistently for 28 years was unlikely to be a place of free spirits or individuals who were gagging to have more control of their own lives. So voting Labour is clearly like breathing to most of them.

Most by-elections are interesting, and produce results well out of kilter with a general election. This one didn't. The last proper one was Taranaki-King Country, when ACT came a close second. In Selwyn, the Alliance came a close second. In Mt Albert, the voters could have voted Green to say no to motorways - but didn't. They could have voted National, but admittedly there was no good reason for that. They could have voted Libertarianz, but clearly the idea of being responsible for yourself frightened too many of them.

So all in all a bit of a yawn. The majority of Mt. Albert voters preferred Clark's vote bribe for the motorway, than stopping it at all (Greens) in favour of a railway, or private property rights (Libertarianz). They didn't want a voice in the current government (National or ACT) either.

So can anything be concluded? Are most voters just inert, and repeat what they always do? Labour is a comfort blanket and they can't bring themselves to go more radically for the state, or less?

Do the majority in Mt Albert fear not having the warm embrace of the state housing, teaching and funding them? Has Helen Clark convinced them of how generous the state is giving them so much, and how incompetent they would be choosing schools, health care and housing, and how horrible people are if she isn't there to regulate them?

Why do people vote Labour?

In fact why did many vote National? Melissa Lee was hardly a star, but do many vote National because it isn't Labour? Or do all of them support the government?
Same with ACT, presumably those voters supported the government and John Boscawen personally.

So Mt Albert has got what it asked for before - except David Shearer is more talented and interesting than Helen Clark.

So are the 35 who voted Libertarianz the only people in Mt Albert who believe in protecting their property rights?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

35 votes.

Pathetic.

The people who run the Libertarianz party need a good kick in the arse.

They also need to develop policy that can resonate with everyday people and dispense with the tired old waffle and philosophical baubles about party drugs, queers getting married and voluntary killing of lonely old grannies.

I'd wager they won't though, it's too hard for them. It's easier to go thru the motions of an election every three years, perform miserably then spend the years in between whinging and sneering. The Cresswellian lot are more about narcissism than anything else.

libertyscott said...

17 more than in 2008. However, you go for it anonymous, join up and you do something positive, or you just like your whinging and sneering - enjoying the government are you?

I guess if you think people should be prison for party drugs, that people shouldn't marry just because they aren't of the same sex, and people in agony shouldn't be allowed to end it, then you couldn't give a damn about less government and more individual freedom either!

Anonymous said...

The Libertarianz are an oxymoron. You can't state you are for individual rights and personal responsiblity and be involved in politics at the same time.

So really, what are they? They certainly are liberal and the certainly are left of centre.

Craig Milmine said...

Anonymous said "So really, what are they? They certainly are liberal and the certainly are left of centre."

I always find that people on the left call Libertarianz right wing while people on the right call Libertarianz left wing. If you cannot think beyond a one-dimensional continuum then Libertarianz will be an enigma to you.

As far as being involved in politics goes - Libertarianz are involved in the politics of self-defence. That is Libertarianz only try to get involved in politics so they can get all the busybody politicians (of both left and right wing variety) out of our lives - so then we don't have to be involved in politics.

Anonymous said...

The Kiwi Party got 85 votes. That's not bad!

Anonymous said...

"...As far as being involved in politics goes - Libertarianz are involved in the politics of self-defence. That is Libertarianz only try to get involved in politics so they can get all the busybody politicians (of both left and right wing variety) out of our lives - so then we don't have to be involved in politics..."

Oh so you're a caretaker government, huh? Once you have power you'll give it up when all the popel are safe? To who? hahah yeah I think history has heard that before. It's usually accompanied by dictatorial regimes and civil war.

Confused is the word I'd call libertarianz. Confused naieve dreamers.

libertyscott said...

Gutless Anonymous of 8.52pm, you're semi literate (popel? naieve?) or drunk - so you only disagree that Libertarianz should surrender power once individual rights have been restored? How confused are you? You only have an argument once we get into power!

Canterbury Atheists said...

My penny’s worth.

In my limited experience of voter trends, Kiwi’s usually vote for the same party as their parents.

It’s a bit like being born a Catholic.

Strategically splitting votes, which is what I do, is also a rarity unlike say Germany, when voters are more ‘clued-up’ as to the workings of MMP.

So any third-party will find it hard going.

See ya.

Paul.