Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: MMP Review - The Proposals

34 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Raymond A Francis, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Well, last time people had a chance to vote on Parliments size I believe 81% thought a smaller Parliment was the way to go

    45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to tussock,

    If people don't want little parties to represent them in parliament they won't fucking well vote for them, eh

    Hard to argue with that.

    Most worrying thing about keeping the threshold quite high is how hard it is for new political movements to gain any parliamentary experience and resources without riding on the coat-tails of an existing MP originally elected for a different party. Is that the path we want the system to emphasise?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Raymond A Francis,

    Well, last time people had a chance to vote on Parliments size I believe 81% thought a smaller Parliment was the way to go

    I wonder how much of that is people who mistakenly believe that NZ has more elected representatives with legislative authority than other countries. We actually have considerably fewer since we don't have a federal model or a bicameral House, and our local authorities are effectively gutless outside the narrow areas of empowerment granted them by central government.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Raymond A Francis, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I quite agree that we need the numbers but your point the maybe the voters are wrong and given time they will agree with us sounds awfully like the Labour Party saying that surely the voters will see they made a mistake and come back to the fold

    45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Raymond A Francis,

    I'm sure they won't come to agree with us, but that doesn't mean their opinion on the number of MPs should hold a lot of sway. If they're not prepared to become experts on forms of democratic governance, which clearly they're not, they need to accept that they won't always get their way.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    Oh, and one tiny thing to add to my rant on page 1. What MMP with no threshold would have given us as governments over the years, including the pre-MMP ones.

    1981: 47 National, 25 Social Credit. No foreign borrowing for think big.
    1984: 52 Labour, 15 Bob Jones. Free market reforms still happen.
    1987: 54 National, 8 Social Credit. No dumping of valuable assets.
    1990: 58 National, 3 Social Credit. National remains left-wing conservative.
    1993: 42 Labour, 22 Alliance. The Liberal socialists reform movement.
    1996: 41 National, 16 Winston, 6 Christian. Conservative backlash (not).
    1999: 47 Labour, 9 Alliance, 5 Winston. Same old stuff.
    2002: 50 Labour, 13 Winston. Cannabis Law Reform passes as a private members bill from the ALCP finally progresses to a conscience vote?


    2008: 54 National, 5 ACT, 1 Peter Dunne. Minority government!
    2011: 57 National, 3 Conservative, 1 Peter Dunne. No asset sales.

    Slightly fanciful here and there and assumptions assume the same vote which it wouldn't be, but still. Better and more responsive governments all around. A great deal more compromises and conscience votes, less hope for the ideological edge, Greens still kinda screwed, ACT even more screwed.

    Since Nov 2006 • 610 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe,

    The question I have is how to get rid of Peter bloody Dunne and never allow the likes of him back. If the Nats didn't give him the spurious "credibility" of a minsterial portfolio, Ohariu voters would have deserted him years ago. As it is, they are smart enough to know that they will have a voice at the top table if they vote for Dunne.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2899 posts Report Reply

  • tussock, in reply to tussock,

    Hey, tussock, stupid. Try the actual formulae, not rounding on percentages, same end results though, for the most part.

    (our alt.history MMP with no minimum)

    Other than Labour/Values winning in '72, Social Credit has held the balance of power since forever. Labour wins again for one term in 1984 with a New Zealand Party coalition. Social Credit again hold the balance of power until 1993 with the one-term Labour-Alliance coalition.

    Shipley's 1-term 1996 government is hamstrung by Peters and Capill, there's no way the Nats can steal 10 votes of NZF's 13 to go hard-right while keeping the CC happy.
    1999 is no change, Labour/Alliance/Green, just a tighter majority and more options for Labour.
    2002 adds Outdoor Recreation's 2 seats to the narrow majority, with again more options for Labour.
    2005 is no change either, but still more options.
    2008 probably eliminates Dunne, as the Māori party hold the balance of power and United's 1 vote is worth nothing.
    2011 it's up to Conservatives if they prefer Dunne or Banks for the slim majority, though National would have about 10 options for passing any vote.

    What amazes me about United is they don't take a few more seats. It should be fairly easy to create a properly corrupt centre that always holds the balance of power and feeds big money to its electorates. They could even bargain based on who gave them the most easy seats. Voters too honest to take it up I suppose. Wonders never cease.

    Since Nov 2006 • 610 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Labour wins again for one term in 1984 with a New Zealand Party coalition.

    Can't see that happening. Despite Labour turning hard right, on election night they were still in theory pretty left wing - election policies etc. Can't pick NZ Party going with them until Douglas started to fire up.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.