Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Timmy H,
rush through under urgency
That would be the definition of ironic.
-
Another random thought, while I remain convinced that this govt and previous govts treat referenda with utter contempt, I strongly doubt the suggested juries would treat public opinion with such a cavalier attitude.
They could easily become the focus for public opinion.
Hmmm that raises issues about the safety of jury members - I suspect voting would have to be absolutely secret.
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Lilith __,
it would be a brave government that went against it.
it would be an arrogant government that went against it
fixed
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
that citizen initiated referenda can
Non-binding and will be completely ignored. Expensive though.
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Timmy H,
People would support it, I think
Now especially. This government has been pretty up front about treating the election as a mandate to do whatever - in the face of widespread strong public opposition.
But - it's too hard. No really. The detail and legal process to create something like this ... sheesh. It's a great conversation topic and a great thought experiment because it cuts straight to the core of what is wrong with our current parliament and the people who occupy it. These juries or something like them might stop the politicians in power from doing things so very many people don't want them to do. We want that. But we can't really make the effort because ... hard.
-
Hard News: This time it's Syria, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
with no further proof of that offered
To be fair they have said they saw rockets launched from govt positions that landed where the gas was released. Not proof no. But at this point only lawyers are arguing.
The reason everyone wants proof good enough to satisfy a lawyer is that everyone is certain that any intervention is going to go pear shaped really fast. When it goes bad it will help if the proof was absolute and also if the decision could be seen to have been a consensus, something that won't be reached without lawyer-worthy proof.
My guess is they have such proof but are reluctant to release it because it would give away just how much spying they are doing in the region.
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
any possible way tobacco companies could lean on the Juries
They worked very hard to lean on politicians and failed - eventually.
Your point is valid though. But I think the one year term makes such influence difficult. It may be easy to buy off two juries but having to do it year after year is harder to do without someone blabbing and it is more expensive.
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to David Haywood,
Having accepted the advantages of two small dissimilar juries
Accepting that small is good. I’d almost argue that 12 is too large. There have been very few meetings I have ever been in where the decision reached by 12 could not have been reached by 6.
But I’d also argue that 2 juries is too few, simple yes but the aim is to produce better governance of NZ, if that can be achieved simply great but if some comlexity is better than complex is worthwhile.
-
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Ross Mason,
Lets see what 29 posts have turned up already.
29 post of people thinking about government. Don't dismiss it. The possibility that you might develop an idea that might improve the country is worth the risk of a few electrons dying under a blanket of stupid.
-
Just some thoughts.
I love the idea and the intent, fewer laws and less of the tendancy to treat the three year term as a right to do anything.
I think it would take most of a year for the juries to get to grips with what goes on in govt. Even with excellent support from parliamentary staff I suspect it would be a hard ask for them to be productive until well into their term.
One solution to that might be to have a rotation. Say 3 new jurors every 3 months that way the noobs could be schooled by the leets.
I think the salary should be benchmarked to ministerial salaries. It should be a job people want.
I think two juries might be too few. It would be nice to have a couple of other juries selected on talent. Alternatively make the juries a little bigger and include some members selected on talent. You could have a couple of artists, a couple of scientists, a couple of athletes, ... all passing some kind of test that assesses their "talent". We already have the politicians selected on the basis of their ability to lie, scheme and get votes, a few more diverse selection methods might be interesting.
I think the juries need to be located away from Parliament. To embed them in the political location as well as the political system would be unreasonable. I'd like to see them in a place with few distractions (eg Palmerston North) that way there's nothing but the job for a year.
Oh and I love this kind of bullshit idea which gets people thinking about what they might really want from their government in contrast to what they get from their government. It really is about thinking.