Cracker: Mr Transparent
41 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Dave,
'Winston: Keeping them honest by comparison'
Love it.
-
And if you hold Duncan Garner's head to your ear, you can hear the sea... Certainly, if you're going to hype up "further explosive secret recordings" you've got to have a little more bang than http://www.3news.co.nz/News/LockwoodSmithsecretlyrecordedsuggestsNationalhashiddenagenda/tabid/209/articleID/65763/cat/87/Default.aspx:
Smith was recorded as saying:
"There's some bloody dead fish you have to swallow... to get into Government to do the kinds of things you want to do... and you have to balance up what really matters."
"If you try to do everything differently you'll scare the horses and under MMP it's very hard to win."
"Once we have gained the confidence of the people, we've got more chance of doing more things."
He went on to talk about doing things in government that you could not talk about before an election.
"We may be able to do some things we believe we need to do, perhaps go through a discussion document process... you wouldn't be able to do them straight off. ... I'm hoping that we'll do some useful things that way, that may not be policy right now."
At least Jacqui Brown is getting something out of her time as the wacky light relief in the Three Newsroom. It's sure not doing much for Duncan Garner...
-
Minister of Infrastructure, Minister of Works, same difference and a hell of a lot more valid than Minister of Auckland Issues.
With regards, Winston; the suit's holding up well but the undies are a bit worn, eh. The elastic has snapped.
As for your Nana, shout her a trip to Samoa or somewhere without a polling booth during election week.
As for MMP, yeah I can understand why your interviewees felt unfulfilled. I'm sure we can think up a better plan to rule ourselves than what the Germans thunk up.
Nice article on the Granny. Why on earth can't the Herald get the journos to put their own tags on their work? Isn't that what journos are? Coherent bloggers?
-
As for MMP, yeah I can understand why your interviewees felt unfulfilled.
Zippy "What's MMP? isn't what I'd suggest feels unfulfilled, but hey, ya never know:)
-
It's little wonder the population suffers from cognitively irrational mood swings, on mass.
Damn those women and their leaky lady bits... what were we thinking when we let them vote? :(
-
Damn those women and their leaky lady bits... what were we thinking when we let them vote? :(
What's voting?:)
-
Zach,
Fine, drop MMP but for the love of God don't go back to FPP. If they have a referendum it had better have more options than just those two.
I swear NZ politics is sliding back - wait.. sideways? - towards the US system where no one cares about policy, and votes based on the perceived personality of the leader and/or historical allegiance to one "side" or the other.
The Americans need proportional representation - we don't need their debacle.
-
What's voting?:)
LOL.
-
Are you suggesting what I think your suggesting? :)
Well, Steven, you'd be surprised how many people still consider menstruation an intellectual disability, if not outright insanity, that renders women utterly incapable of anything more complicated than birthing, cooking and cleaning.
-
The apparently misogynistic swing, thats showed up in resent poles?
No, Steven, the utterly unjustified condescension of certain sections of the population towards doubleplusungoodthinkful proles.
-
If voters vote National without paying attention to policy, simply because they want change, then they'll get a democracy they deserve, much like U.S. voters.
-
If voters vote National without paying attention to policy, simply because they want change, then they'll get a democracy they deserve, much like U.S. voters.
Christian: How close are you to the Palace of Westminster? You know, the place with the unelected Prime Minister whose party, three years ago, won 55% of seats, with the support of a little over 21% of eligible voters (35.3% of a 61.3% turnout)? London's not really the best plot of moral high ground to be sniffing at electors in the United States. Or here.
-
I suspect that the hankering for FPP is that under it most people occasionally got to vote in a government they wanted. Wasn't that what we did in '84? or thought we were doing anyway. Well unless they were Social Credit voters and there were few enough of them.
People also see compromise as weakness instead of the strength it is. I think that the weakening of the party whips in parliament allowing the putting together of coalitions of the willing is a good thing.
Another may be people looking at the lists and forgetting people get elected to constituencies too. Perhaps what happens here in Scotland might help. We have an SNP MSP at the moment but Labour still have a constituency office staffed by an MSP, only he is a list MSP. So if holding my nose and going to the SNP woman is anathema I can go see the Labour chappie. IOW give some of those list bods a constituency to help look after.
-
I voted Labour in 1984 - because of FPP my voted counted for squat (I happened to live just over the hill from Dunedin in the Otago electorate - the safest National seat in the country at the time) - in fact because of where I lived there was no chance of my vote ever counting for anything - whether I voted for Labour or National the result would have been the same.
Equally if I'd lived on the other side of the hill in North Dunedin, one of the safest Labour seats at the time my vote wouldn't have made a difference either.
That's one of the main problems I have with FPP - governments that get fewer votes but more seats (like Muldoon's) are the obvious stupid results FPP throws out but what I hate is that people in some marginal electorates get pandered to to get votes - just watch the upcoming US election - no one's going to go to California (except to raise money)
-
I don't disagree with you Paul, I was simply pointing out that a lot of people don't see it that way. FWIW I voted physically in Dunedin North in '84 but being a first year Scarfie mine was a postal vote in Waitakere, and if memory serves, mine counted ;-)
I strongly suspect that if NZ went back to FPP after a couple of elections there would be another referendum and it would be back to MMP or something similar. Better not to flip flop think.
Here in the UK the vote for the Westminster parliament is now the only FPP vote in the country. Devolved administrations are MMP, European Parliament is PR as, in the last round, are council elections now. Here in Scotland PR has been a lifesaver for the Tory Party, not that at national level they are appreciative of the benefits of PR. It's a funny old world.
-
Um that should have been a special vote, not a postal one.
-
sorry - I wasn't trying to criticise what you'd said - more try to explain to those who don't remember the inequities that FPP caused
(and I actually wasn't present in Dunedin for that vote - my last day in NZ before I started my OE was the day Marylin Waring crossed the floor and voted against US nukes - we travelled in Tonga and Samoa for 3 weeks and I voted in the US - last time I got to vote anywhere for 20 odd years - I'm still annoyed I missed seeing Muldoon go down for the count)
-
I voted Labour in 1984 - because of FPP my voted counted for squat
Well, by definition even under MMP the electorate votes of a hell of a lot of people "count for squat" -- because they're either invalid, or cast for unsuccessful candidates. In my own electorate of North Shore - one of the safer National-held seats - 14,453 (or 38.72%) of the electorate vote was 'wasted'. In Otaki, the "wasted" vote was 21,055 - or 54.53%.
I do think that MMP was way over-sold as the mechanism whereby Parliament would become an endless round of group hugs and tea parties on the vicarage lawn. So, you shouldn't really be too surprised when there's a counter-reaction, where changing the electoral system (or turning Auckland into a "mega-city") is about something else again. But that doesn't make people stupid.
-
Damian, you asked the wring question about MMP. The question should be:
"Do you want your vote to count in the next election?".
If the answer is "yes" the MMP system or something similar would be the natural outcome.
Of "no" then FPP or some sort of similar dictatorship by the minority.
As any pollster knows, it's all in the phrasing.
-
Craig: I don't see how Christian's living in London implies that he supports the undemocratic UK electoral system?
I'd say the UK and the US are about comparable. Bush got the support of 26% of eligible voters vs 21% for Blair, but, in the US, third party voters realise they have nowhere to turn and almost all vote for a major candidate. In the UK, there are the Liberals to vote for, as well as the Scots & Welsh Nats.
-
Craig: I don't see how Christian's living in London implies that he supports the undemocratic UK electoral system?
I don't know that he does, but one would think the United Kingdom is rather unstable moral high ground to affect any kind of political or moral superiority over those dumb fascist Yanks. Get back to me when Gordon Brown is elected Prime Minister in his own right, someone - anyone - is prosecuted over the 'cash for peerages' scandal, and election turn-out increases for once.
-
Damian, you asked the wring question about MMP. The question should be:
"Do you want your vote to count in the next election?".
And, sadly, Do you know what MMP or FPP or STV is?
-
Jo S,
With regards to people not knowing what political acronyms are, I wonder how much of it is sometimes being put on the spot.
I was sitting here going "I'm sure I know what STV stands for ..." until a very quiet voice from the back of my brain whispered "..single transferrable vote", which I'm still not absolutely convinced is right.Sometimes I think people would rather plead ignorance than be wrong... especially in public
-
Sometimes I think people would rather plead ignorance than be wrong... especially in public
Hmmmm. Tautological thought? Have you considered becoming a National party speech writer? ;-)
-
Aside from Winston - and remember he was around a looooong time before MMP - I think MMP has worked pretty well. Parties have negotiated confidence and supply over key issues, such as Kiwibank, Buy NZ Made campaign etc, and whether you think they're daft or not, at least some proportion of the people agreed with and voted for those policies. The fact that MMP is German, and was devised to stop someone like Hitler coming to power again, doesn't make it a bad thing does it?
If we drop MMP, it won't be to bring in STV. STV was IMHO always the better system, but the MMP pushers had the jump on the campaign, and it became FPP vs MMP, not FPP vs another system. If we dump it, people aren't going to go "fuck, might as well have a crack at another system I have no idea about".
I'm interested to know how much of the Nats push for the BINDING referendum is pandering to the perceived public appetite, and how much of it is because they too want to return to the days of unbridled power with only 30% of the vote.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.