Right through to which judge hears your case.
I've never understood how it can be considered so normal for people like judges and journalists to register with a political affiliation and then have it so casually referred to all the time as a standard part of talking about who they are.
Is it true what I think I heard once, that for judges in particular, picking a "side" and declaring it is the only practical way to progress their career?
The way in which the Supreme Court gets framed in such a completely partisan way, as if it's completely normal and acceptable, does my head in.
simply stacking the electoral commission with cronies
On this point, what would be involved in this compared with the USA, given NZ's Electoral Commission's executive is (effectively) appointed by Parliament, rather than by the SSC or a Minister, or any specific individual? It also has some fairly clearly stated objectives in legislation (4C), which presumably mean it could be challeneged in court if it strayed from facilitating participation, promoting understanding of the system and maintaining confidence in the system's administration.
That said, I'm still wary that our Electoral Act is treated as just another piece of legislation, which Parliament can mess with at any time like any other law. If we had a clearer constitutional framework in place then I'd expect it to be more difficult to change than that. (Probably not impossible, though. Having stuff that's virtually impossible to change seems to be part of the cause for all the crazy stuff that happens in the US.)
Total destruction is clearly what JLR was out for last week. It is the mentality of the Judith Collins faction of the National Party. Back in 2011, Slater passed on Collins’ message to Lusk, who replied: “That’s why I am keen to have her as leader, our side will learn to fight properly.” Slater added: “And fight hard”.
I think this is still true. I think that the attacks on Bridges, aided by Lusk and Slater, are about making Collins the leader of the National Party. She was uncharacteristically quiet during the last week of destabilisation of Bridges. Collins has repeatedly said she has had nothing to do with Ross’s behaviour. But she is very keen on becoming leader. If she becomes leader in the coming months, based in part on the crisis brewed in recent weeks, it will be a victory for dirty politics.
Possibly their voters are ideologically more likely to see such self-serving behaviour as unexceptionable, or even desirable. How bad does it need to get before it alienates National’s base? We might be about to find out.
I'm not getting my hopes up. Keep in mind that most voters have other lives, and are often barely even following what's happening right now. Just because someone hates the National party, or thinks that all politicians are corrupt and dishonest, doesn't mean they won't vote National if the alternative is something they're convinced is worse.
I think too many voters, on most sides, get distracted by the potential euphoria, or fear, of a change in government happening at all. Stuff like electoral finance laws and transparent government aren't really a direct enough thing in most people's day-to-day lives for policies on them to strongly influence elections. Except maybe 2008 when the recent changes were turned into a vile and polarising campaign issue, where potential voters were told that the changes were an unfair and corrupt mechanism for the government to suppress National's ability to get elected.
Not that things could never meaningfully change, but I can't imagine it happening in any normal scenario. Maybe if it's a policy enforced by a smaller party in a coalition deal, but without uncharacteristic multi-partisan support it'd risk going the way of 2008 again.
What frightens me is how much the Nats are completely for sale to the highest bidder.
Is it reasonable to say that the National Party's likely to be a more enviable target for this sort of crap right now, due to its voter base? My impression's been that Labour tends to be affected much more substantially by scandal and general disgust than National.
Maybe that's because National's traditional voting base is made from people who'll always vote, and (if that's what it takes) will hold their nose and vote for what they see as the least worst option no matter how much they might despise it. A classic running-interference line through so much of late 2014 was "but they all do it!" [so it doesn't make a difference].
Traditional Labour voters, as far as I can tell, seem more likely to find another party if they feel disillusioned by Labour, and they usually have more options, or otherwise just not bother to vote at all.
Schadenfreude, a great big tub of it to scoop out and enjoy while the press hunts down some wounded politicians.
Only at a surface level, for me. I'm more disgusted when I see this stuff than amused.
There are people who get into politics for really good reasons, trying to make positive differences. We'd have so much better-a-place to live in if politics didn't keep attracting the influence of demented sociopaths who see it as their mission to take advantage of and manipulate everyone else.
The National Party deserves to be deeply embarrassed, although whatever happens to its leader I doubt it'll make a difference to polling or voter turnout even medium term. I also hope JLR gets whatever help he needs before he implodes.
List MPs votes belong not to them, but to the party they represent. It always seemed logical to me that if a list MP resigns, or is sacked by their party, the next person on the list should take their seat.
I'd counter this by saying that Parties are made up of the people whom they collectively choose to represent them in Parliament. If one or more list MP's choose to leave the others, or if they're kicked out by the executive, why is it such a foregone conclusion that the party's executive is better at representing the party's voters than the list MPs who can't continue to work with it?
Finally the criticisms of the Greens for supporting it make sense
I sort of get why the Greens might have done this. Given its principles I'm saddened that it didn't, for example, support the Bill on a condition such as requiring that serious consideration of the MMP review's recommendations be revived.
Is there something that could reasonably be done to place stronger constitutional constraints on further manipulation of the Electoral Act? Or at least certain parts of it?
In the 90s we had a big discussion and voted to switch to MMP. In 2011 we voted to keep it, on condition of a review towards making it better. That review received lots of feedback and made recommendations which, at the very least, should have been a starting point for discussion.
Since then, Judith Collins threw out the review on superficial grounds, probably because it didn't suit whatever National's short term political goals were at the time. Now Labour, NZF and the Greens are combining in government to make a major change to the rules in a way that virtually all expert input seems to argue would make our electoral system function worse.. Meanwhile ACT (well, Seymour at least) has been waving around ideas for further butchering of the system, which might genuinely become part of a future coalition agreement similar to how NZF's paranoia has, and in ways that completely contradict the principles of the system we've now voted for twice.
Every party that's presently in Parliament has played a role in messing with the public process of engagement that we've been using to set the rules we use to elect them. If it's so easy for MPs to do that when it suits them, why do we even bother with all this combination of public and expert engagement.
Awfully nice of him to use FYI
Yeah I thought so too. I like FYI because it shows people they can ask questions when they mightn't have previously known, but it doesn't tend to be popular with journos and lobbyists for good reason.
Unless he's ignorant, is there any of motivation for Miles Stratford to use FYI, where everyone can see what he's asking and what he gets back before he's even had a chance to digest it?
If you go back a generation or so, the officials provided the advice and the Ministers took the heat. The change since the turn of the millennium is palpable - officials are part of the political process, not advisors to it.
Until I read this this morning, I hadn't realised there's a new Public Service Act in the works. It could be interesting to see if it'll have any meaningful effect.