The poll also asks voters which of the two parties, National or Labour, is best for young families, best for growing the economy and best for closing the gap between the haves and have-nots. Labour trumped National as best for families, at 54.4 per cent to 34.4 per cent with 11.3 per cent undecided.
It was also streets ahead of National at closing the gaps, at 56.1 per cent to 29 per cent, and 14.9 per cent undecided. But National was seen as the safest pair of hands with the economy, at 63 per cent to Labour's 27.7 per cent.
The state of the economy directly impacts on social well-being and standard of living. If someone thinks that National is the better government for growing the economy, why would they, on the other hand, think National is the worse government for advancing family well-being?
Unless they think that Labour will ensure there is greater state redistribution of wealth, which is good for young families and closing the gaps, but reluctantly understand that it is not good for the economy.
Because what this poll is actually saying is some people believe what is good for them is not necessarily good for the country. The big question then is how do they vote?
It's a bit like trying to decide whether to vote for the small picture or the big picture. Or for the present or the future. Or to borrow or save. It must present a real conflict in some households.
5 comments:
It's not really a big conflict at all. What does NZ's govt spend money on
Welfare. Super. Health. Education - each around 1/4 of the govt spend.
Every one of those hundred billion dollars makes bludging individuals better off, and the country as a whole worse off.
Then again - in the 9-10am interview, Kathryn called National's policies communist and said NZ was a communist country
Whatever you might think about the bias of RadioNZ & the MSM - I've never heard Key called a commie to his face
All these polls do is reinforce Winston Churchill’s observation that ‘the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter’. Or perhaps Robert Muldoon’s observation that ‘voters wouldn’t recognize a deficit if they tripped over it.’
It may be that we are becoming more financially literate, but are we more willing to forsake Labour's election bribes than we have been in previous years?
I hope so.
If someone thinks that National is the better government for growing the economy, why would they, on the other hand, think National is the worse government for advancing family well-being?
Because they're aware that National will direct the benefits of economic growth to people who aren't them. Economic growth matters little if you don't get any benefit from it.
The real shocker in there is that National is seen as the safest pair of hands for the economy by such a majority. There's actually little difference between National and Labour governments in economic terms.
five-minute conversation with the average voter
Income is Zipf-distributed. The mean income is far above the median income. 10% of Kiwis pay 80% of income tax because they get 80% of the income.
Absent corrective measure as recently suggested by Peter Thiel, the below average (really below median income) voter will quite rationally chose parties who will increase their after-tax income (WFF) at the cost of above-average income earners.
Post a Comment