Hard News: Time to get a grip
126 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
I am pleased to see Moira Coatsworth as the new party president. I had a little to do with her a few years ago through her work with special education (I think she's an ed psych). Anyhow very impressive, sensible and innovative in that field. This might even be the time for disability activists to join the LP.
-
In that sense, it’s the same lesson as John Banks being trounced by Hubbard in the mayoral race, then sweeping back three years later with almost exactly the same number of votes.
A lot of independents in Auckland voted against the eastern motorway.
If the Left gets its campaign right, it wins in central Auckland – but the right’s vote is much more reliable.
Or the campaign needs some significant issue that will resonate.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
She'll have to learn to cover her contempt better.
Surely there's a buff for that?
Sadly she isn't much above babbling party line either.
It's kind of expected. She's not really invested with authority to make up her own party line. You have to get to party leader before you're allowed to do that in real time on prime time TV.
-
The Herald last week cited Tizard's situation as a negative for MMP. I was struggling to see why anyone would care about a situation that arises occasionally, has no affect on outcomes or policy and merely relects the outcome of the last election.
Meanwhile, despite being in a rush to bag MMP, the Herald *STILL* hasn't acknowledged or reported on the democratic disaster inflicted on Auckland last year by First Past the Post in the election for Auckland's Council: 62.5% of all votes cast didn't elect anyone to the Council. 13 of 20 Councilors got less than 30% of the vote in their wards. In Albany Ward, over 80% of votes cast elected no one. In North Shore and Whau Wards - both - over 69% of votes cast elected no one.
That's a lot of votes - the VAST majority - electing no one at all to the Council.
We didn't hear a peep out of the Herald about that disaster.
They must look at democratic matters with the telescope around the wrong when.....so trivial things look large and REALLY IMPORTANT stuff.....isn't seen at all.
Why else would a minor list issue rate daily coverage while almost 2/3's of Aucklanders electing no one at all to "our" Council....didn't rate a mention anywhere in the Herald?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Seriously, though, folks, I understand that a large sector of the media went to lunch on this thing, but if Tizard had been more disciplined and loyal none of this would have happened. She didn’t open her mouth but to hurt her own reputation and the party last week.
If she'd said nothing, she wouldn't have made things worse, true, but the weirdly vindictive approach to her started long before last week. And that Hubbard column was really spiteful, to the extent that it didn't even make sense.
The race to finding excuses for her seems a little odd to be honest.
To be fair, viral hepatitis is a pretty good excuse for low energy, as excuses go.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
To be fair, viral hepatitis is a pretty good excuse for low energy, as excuses go.
Sure. Having been in a place with no cellphone coverage somewhat less so. Was she the only person on the planet who hadn't anticipated that Darren Hughes would retire?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
To be fair, viral hepatitis is a pretty good excuse for low energy, as excuses go.
To be fair to herself, Auckland Central, and Labour, it would have been the perfect excuse to put someone else in there.
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
A winning list candidate has got 40,000+ votes from the whole country. A winning electroral candidate typically gets 10-15000 votes, all clumped in one place.
Any evidence at all that any voter was aware of, say, anyone below number five on the list of the party for whom they were voting? Given the level of ignorance about MMP (improving, but 1/3 of people still don't know the party vote is most important) what is there to suggest that the majority of voters even know the first five?!
I'd posit that people see a party vote as a vote for the party not any individual or even group of individuals, and see the role of a list MP as being nothing more than a pawn at the disposal of the party's leader (in other words, they have a fairly astute understanding of the reality).
No list MP gains or loses significant votes for their party. Certainly not 40,000 of them. Ironically, the largest vote gain would be from someone like David Garrett, who'd guarantee the votes of a relatively small number of people with whom he was closely associated.
-
In her Q & A interview she mentioned that she'd finally heard from Goff and Little (I think) a day earlier. After a week of bad media.
It seems like this whole thing could have been avoided if they'd phoned her up and been polite and reasonable instead of making rather high-handed statements through the press, and that after several weeks of people criticising Labour for having poor communications and decision-making processes, they still make poor decisions and communicate them badly.
-
Steve Withers, in reply to
Rex: As arguments go, it is insupportable to hold voters who vote for a party do not also support its list. The votes for the party are evidence that people supported the list - whether they know who is on it or not. If they care, then they know. If they don't care....then they may not know...but support it anyway with their vote. Any voting system will suffer the laziness and ignorance of many voters. The recent Auckland elections saw many of us voting for people we'd never heard of before...and hoping the brochure that came with the ballots wasn't a pack of lies.
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
I'm actually in favour of having a strong, enforcable framework of basic law. But it should be entrenched by popular mandate and reflect real human rights and principles, not the "right to make a fast buck".
(Since you get two posts I'll take two replies :-P)
That's a very important point that seems to be being overlooked by most commentary criticising this Bill... basic law is not a bad thing per se - in fact I wish we had more of it, so as to constrain the wilder excesses of our lawmakers.
The concept of an Act which sets out a framework for future regulation is also not necessarily a bad thing in principle. It's just that this is a very, very bad Bill.
Perhaps it's time for NZ to embark on a national conversation around what we consider to be our basic human rights as Australia did in 2009* and then set about codifying these into law. That way it'd meet the "general consensus" test you correctly prescribe, would thus have widespread support, and could be entrenched.
* Of course Rudd promptly refused to pass any such law despite it being supported by supported by over 87% of a record 35,000 submissions. But hopefully any NZ leader who displayed such hubris would meet with a similar fate.
-
Perhaps it's time for NZ to embark on a national conversation around what we consider to be our basic human rights as Australia did in 2009* and then set about codifying these into law.
Already done it. It's called the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The real question is whether we make it superior law, and how, not what those rights are.
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
The votes for the party are evidence that people supported the list - whether they know who is on it or not.
That seems oxymoronic, and instead supports my contention that someone voted for (let's say) Labour's list because they wanted Labour to form the government and had no other way to do it rather than "supporting the list".
I've always favoured STV in some form, possibly heavily modified, but a comment by "Yvette" on a post I wrote on MMP suggested an interesting alternative.
Basically it's that the party vote gives a "weight" to the votes of the Party, cast by the Leader of Whip. So each electorate MP votes, then the "party vote" is simply added on (she explains it better, hence my link whoring).
If people were given a choice between proportionality without the upkeep of indolent, blindly loyal list MPs (for examples, check Danyl's post linked in the original post here, and that's just a few) and the existing system, I suspect they'd go for the former as they don't, in the main, "support the list" or indeed support the idea of list MPs, at all but rather see them as a necessary evil of MMP.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Surely there’s a buff for that?
The trinket drops in Heroic HoO, but it's on use :(
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
Already done it. It's called the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Yeah, we're ahead of the Aussies in that respect (as I took great delight in reminding them when I got the chance to address the Review :-D)
But the Australian example went further, and into far greater detail, with submissions on a variety of issues including specific rights for sub-groups such as indigenous people, refugees, prisoners and others for whom general rights may not be entirely applicable or, alternatively, not go far enough.
That would have informed not just an Australian BORA but also myriad subsidiary legislation.
But I agree, making the NZBORA superior law is the way to go as an interim measure. The rest of it could be undertaken as part of a review of the operation of that Act.
Incidentally, New Zealand came up for its last Universal Periodic Review of human rights by the UN in May 2009. It's a four year cycle so that suggests it'll come up again in mid-2013. That would be an opportune time, perhaps, to highlight this Bill - if it becomes law - and other pieces of legislation which infringe rights.
-
Oh puhleese ... Judith was next on the List, would she accept the seat? Yes or No? Let's face it, she's a drama queen with very little to offer. She could have easily baby-sat the seat until the next election (or not). Instead she chose the high-viz approach complete with *gasp* I'll tell you my decision 'live' on Q&A.
So she's had vitriol poured on her over the last week, yup politics is a nasty business, toughen up. It's Darren Hughes I feel sorry for. Regardless of his innocence (or not), that really has been trial by media and he's paid the ultimate cost. At least he's had the sense to shut up about it.
As for Goff ... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Labour girl but I truly despair of his abysmal track record as leader - the man has twatcock stamped all over him. Labour's chances in the next election leave me feeling bleak. -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
One important right that we don't have is the right to a fair and democratic legislative process. Sure, we have "the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot" but there's nothing to stop the HoR being permanently sidelined in whole or part.
(The USA has this, as alluded to above. Even if it wanted to, Congress is restricted by the constitution from delegating legislation).
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
So basically, a smaller party (that has one or no electorates) would be solely represented by the leader, who would cast a block vote at their discretion.
(Call me cynical, but you were in NZ First some time ago, right? I can see how that would have been attractive...)
I don't think that would help with cynicism about parties from the electorate, really.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
+1 across the board.
-
GeoffRobinson, in reply to
Maybe I'm ignorant of party processes but couldn't Labour have reviewed their list post-election so that it reflected their actual preference for next-in-line candidates?
Doesn't seem to be an MMP issue at all - just poor foresight. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Maybe I'm ignorant of party processes but couldn't Labour have reviewed their list post-election so that it reflected their actual preference for next-in-line candidates?
I sincerely hope it's not possible to do this. Some of us actually read those lists ahead of the elections, you know. I'd hate for a party to change theirs post hoc and replace all the non elected with the Addams or, worse, the Douglas family.
-
Andre, in reply to
I wonder what will happen to the Green vote in Auckland Central without Nandor in the running. A lot of traditional Labour supporters may have given him their electorate vote. Many others may not have voted for him but might like his replacement. It could have an effect on Labour's polling this year.
-
James Butler, in reply to
I’ve always favoured STV in some form, possibly heavily modified, but a comment by “Yvette” on a post I wrote on MMP suggested an interesting alternative.
Basically it’s that the party vote gives a “weight” to the votes of the Party, cast by the Leader of Whip. So each electorate MP votes, then the “party vote” is simply added on (she explains it better, hence my link whoring).
I've considered a similar idea myself, but it does assume that the entire purpose of an MP in the chamber is to vote. Consider the Greens, with ~10% of ~100 MPs - this puts the entire responsibility of voting, asking questions in the house, sitting on select committees etc. for ~10 MPs worth of representation on one person.
To make this work would require a huge overhaul of the way our parliament is run. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, but...
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
If you mean the legally binding list, no. The list is filed before the election and used to supply any vacancies between then and the next election (S.137 Electoral Act). To vary the list, the party has to persuade the candidate(s) they don't want elected to stand aside. Only candidates on the original list can be elected - they can't nominate someone who didn't run at the last election.
The new list which parties are now adopting is for the *next* election.
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
So basically, a smaller party (that has one or no electorates) would be solely represented by the leader, who would cast a block vote at their discretion.
(Call me cynical, but you were in NZ First some time ago, right? I can see how that would have been attractive...)So you think Winston consulted each one of the circus clowns in his caucus before making a decision on something?! A "block vote" is exactly that way it happened in practice, except the NZ taxpayer had the pleasure of paying for the odious Ron Mark, the confused "there's something wrong with immigrants... I know coz I iz 1" Peter Brown, et al.
OTOH what gives someone like, say, any of the NZF '96 intake (who were ranked by Winston, Lhaws and Sarah Neems) any legitimacy? Or, say, David Garrett? None of these people garnered a single vote in their own right, and I think people are smart enough to realise that.
The system Yvette proposed wouldn't stop, say, Winston having an "advisory board" (at his own expense), but we would't be paying for the fallacy that there's an actual caucus he consults.
Note I'm not advancing Yvette's solution as my own favourite (the only advantage it has over the status quo is cost saving), but I like that fact it drops the pretence that list MPs have any real input, so I float it more as a way to make people wake up to the reality, in the hope they'll then explore other options.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.