Posts by James Caygill
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
Presumably you mean that is your judgment based on your experience. Or are you saying your breakdown is some kind of policy or procedurally accepted system?
A little from column a and a little from column b. It's hard to tell where that line is. Certainly it's not a procedurally accepted system in the wider public service - but that's how we looked at it in Minister's offices.
You campaigned; if you won, you spent the next budget getting through all the things you could that you promised to do (all of the immediate stuff like tax changes, allowance shifts, significant programmes that needed funding). The next budget was a more flexible one, obviously you are responding to events, but also allowing your policy platform to bed down. The third budget is all about positioning for the next election, within the context of your fiscal strategy and your approach to government. (rinse repeat if you get reelected).
So my basic point (and I accept that it may not be compelling to others) is that a four year term simply gives you more of the time in between. I don't think that need be looked on as anti-democratic. Governments are elected to govern and I have no problem with wanting them to get on and do that.
I think there's no better illustration of the perversity of short election cycles than looking at the US House of Representatives. There are many many things wrong with that body, but I think a large number of them stem directly from the permanent campaign psyche.
I agree with you Ben that any number is arbitrary. Of course it is - I don't buy into magic number theory. But I think Representative Democracy does need to be given a space where representatives can actually be allowed to represent, rather than looking constantly to the polls and voters to see if what they are doing is 'popular'.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
You don't have to buy it Ben - I'm simply telling you that that IS my experience in Government.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Even if this is true – and I’ll concede it may well be – it only affects the first term of a government. And it is rare that they don’t get another three or even six years.
No it doesn't. As I have often found myself saying to people who say "why didn't Labour fix [insert pet peeve], they had nine years to do it?". It's more sensible to think of it as three three year terms.
Let's look at what that means in terms of budgets (which is what we're focussed on at the moment):
2000 - Implement election promises
2001 - Governing Budget
2002 - Election Year
2003 - Implement election promises
2004 - Governing Budget
2005 - Election Year
2006 - Implement election promises
2007 - Governing Budget
2008 - Election year and GFC. -
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to James,
So the first Budget is just tweaks on what went before, maybe with some coalition deals glued on top. The second Budget is the real deal. The third Budget is just some patches; no time to learn from the effects of the previous one.
A four year cycle might give the (elected) Government and the Executive enough time to learn how to work together by year 3.
That is certainly my experience....
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Fair enough - re: people should vote for it not parliament (although that's a value judgement, not the law).
What about the justification I put forward in favour Graeme? I think they're valid, do you?
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I’ll have a go Graeme, since I’m a supporter of four years.
I think first off it’s important to distinguish between the Executive and Parliament. Yes, we’re talking about Parliamentary elections but I think the main impact is on the Executive.
A longer term means more time for a Cabinet to get policy working through the wider Executive Branch, and be able to assess whether policy is working as intended within the term.
I think it’s also useful to understand how a looming election distorts government and governing. I can see some commentators taking the “it’s a good thing to be focussed on the electorate” positions – and I understand that, but I tend to the electoral paralysis position that looming elections have a perversely chilling effect on governing (this is certainly true in terms of the mechanics of the public service).
Bottom line – I think under MMP we have a more diverse Parliament within which a truly unpopular government is more likely to be brought down by defections etc within its term, if it is truly unpopular and has lost its way. That being the case (which is certainly something people can contest) I’d prefer to have elections every four years, rather than every three so that governments have more time to govern.
I’d be interested to know your view Graeme if Parliament altered the Constitution Act with a 75% majority, which they are legally entitled to do , and inserted a four year term, but put that change in term off for a number of years in the future, thus removing any immediate self-interest (noting of course that some will always see self interest in any term lengthening move). Would you be as opposed?
-
I think the whole "America will never change" argument I hear from within the US and from outside needs careful examination. Never say never.
There are plenty of minor changes which might help at the margin's and I hope we see them pursued.
But the fundamental truth is that you can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Solution: amend the constitution and delete the second amendment - it simply doesn't make sense in the 21st century.
Having reached that conclusion you run into the storm of "it'll never happen" responses. Yet it's happened twenty-seven times already - including the decision to grant the right in the first place.
Societies can and do change - including the US. Look at attitudes to civil rights....Think what Reagan would have thought of Marriage Equality. Hell, think what George W Bush thought of Marriage Equality.
Bottom line - it takes a concerted campaign within a culture to change a culture. That's the only thing that will solve this problem.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Emma Hart,
I seem to be the person in Chch who’s in favour of the Hagley Oval upgrade. A proper for-real test cricket venue in Christchurch? Yes fucking please. Auckland doesn’t currently have an international test ground. Parking is a concern, yeah, but there’s no street parking round the Basin Reserve, either.
I'm another one Emma.
The upgrade of the Oval has been talked about for years - actually the biggest impediment to it (pre-quake) was the netball courts on the other side of the park, because being unable to shift them and messing with the oval messed with the overall layout of the sports grounds in South Hagley.
If people want to get up in arms about private use of the park why don't we get angrier about the CCC continually bailing out the golf course in North Hagley? I for one would happily see it go in favour of the Hagley Oval upgrade.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
Job #1 is to make sure private sector investors (especially bearing foreign currency) have their needs met, hence the flavour of crowd at the launch event. Think of this plan first and foremost as a reassuring investment prospectus. Which is not to say it is necessarily a bad plan for that.
Got it in one. Without foreign investment none of this works.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
I couldn’t tell either. You can download the Apendix with the District Plan changes from the top of the main CBDU Plan page. Be interested to hear more about what your expert eyes make of it.
Just some quick thoughts...
Well Residential is a permitted activity in the CBD. They've set minimum unit sizes (the detail of which I'm not qualified to judge - but presumably to stop shoeboxes) - and they seem to be wanting everything to go through an urban design panel so there is some hope.
There's basically two zones, the business zone and a "Mixed Use Zone". Residential is in both but with differing density/outdoor space requirements....
Looks good initially - but note - I am not a planner.