The important factors for political decisions 2017 are the economy and its social organisation. An incoming administration should reflect its experience of good government not only by its principles but also by the social organisation of their outcome.

I have previously suggested Social Conservativism with Te Rangatiratanga tradition ideal to steer us through uncertainties. And true to their tradition, they are unmoved by alarming display of populous adversaries.

And so it looks like everyone including the media is cheerleading on the campaign trail this election. If parties are not offering populous social spending, they are playing pure politics of reactionaries; the bottom line to that famous patriotic appeal.

While they have indirectly demoralised voter's free choice, they themselves have unwillingly revealed their populous stand on issues. And with the exception of National's principle position, others do not indicate a solid base on the political spectrum. They merely suggest an opportunistic stab at a job for another season.

We have valuable experience that career politicians do not make any progress for their respective electorates. As a result, we are currently experiencing an infrastructure deficiency. And that points to a flaw in independent electorates. They cannot make major decisions by themselves.

Just how easy it is to ride the political system on populous bids to serious social issues is a major concern. That to me is no respect for the voter when proposals expect to influence opinions not by well thought out policies but by emotional and populous bids. That is why my vote remains solid on balance and stability of the economy therefore social development.

With a genuine approach to social issues, the narrow scope of stability according to me is represented by National and the Maori Party. It's a bold declaration in the face of recent opinion polls but on doing what is right is a win.

Under the heading 'gunman remains on the loose after shootout', most if not all political reactions to the 'wrap around character building' did not offer an alternative. They have all failed to see reality.

I have a feeling that some reactions were leaning towards public funding of community projects including families. But other strong oppositions showed nothing more than pure politics.

The same issue was raised a few years ago by a community in Auckland and among the resolutions was one that proposed to line up the usual offenders in a firing squad. But even in the scale of such extremes the proposal won him the most popular man of the hui. He could have been the most populous minister in office under the current trend.

We don't entertain such practice, but trying to match him up with a compatible left party sympathiser is trying to figure out what's happening with the current political offering. Extreme!

Like political opportunism, the social consequences are at the extreme end of violence while reactionaries are somewhat in favour of PC wrap around treatments. Any program can work if participants are willing. It could also work with a bit of push if unwilling. But the issue has traced to political interference with families and their traditional way of organisation.

It is the intruding of external ways into tradition that have children broke away from family ties. And these deviant behaviours are bred when they themselves have children of their own.

What is needed now is realisation of self, but to do this may not be achieved by a PC approach.

The other issue demanding political attention this election is Immigration. Immigration has been an economic issue in the last decade. First the availability of a consumer population is necessary. Second, the demand for skill workers is also required for economic maintenance. At the same time, New Zealand expects to fulfil its part in refugee quotas and human rights consideration.

What could happen if populous bids tip the balance? We could end up with too many skilled workers who would influence wages and the cost of living too high for local standards. What detrimental effects could impose upon local businesses is liken to health care providers facing closure because of high wages.

This is the same problem I have raised earlier about 'socialist' systems that do not generate any profit but depend on tax revenue funding to run.

This can occur when too many consumers may influence socialist developments such as obesity, diabetes, health care as well as offsetting demands for housing, etc..

Immigration is a global trend where open boundaries to employment have immigration standardised. This is also part of some much needed FTAs but the patriotic appeal has politicalised the issue away from social and economic coherence. I don't think NZ First and Labour can operate a successful economy without Immigration.

Immigration therefore should not be determined by populous bids but by a bipartisan approach a public issue.

And finally, it is expected of the young generation to make major political mistakes both national and international. How can someone interfere with a foreign government has drawn serious responds of espionage and security. It has serious social consequences upon innocent victims.

I think we can learn from the wrap around resolve that deviant behaviour among the young is inherent of their generation. While it's a welcoming change progressing from the old to the new, it certainly comes with own defects.

So, in the best interests of society, how we deal with extreme violence and crime and Immigration requires a serious economic plan. No economy can perform on a populous bid or socialist system without capital and generating profit.

That is why the media among the cheerleading campaigners cannot be relied upon for genuine and solid social economic decisions.