Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ok I withdraw the "folks like you" it wasn't meant as a pejorative.
I however disagree that "parties elected to government have a mandate to implement the policies on which they campaigned – is a core feature of democracy"
It's a core feature of our version of democracy.
To me what a party does is represent a viewpoint held by a proportion of the population. The key word is "represent". That doesn't mean to me that they should be allowed to make law based on that opinion or policy but instead that they should represent a viewpoint when a law is made.
That would hopefully make the law contain some representation of the opinion of that section of the population. But not to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. It's that latter that we have seen all to much from our current politicians. It's the desire to exclude other viewpoints when a government gains power that has messed up our MMP system. We have continually talked about the "need" to have a majority in order to govern. But what is actually meant by that is there is a need to have an absolute majority to dictate. Without a majority governing would require compromise ... which is bad because????
The mandate a party has when it is elected is to represent a set of views and opinions. Some of that is embodied in policies they campaign on but I don't want even my views enacted into law without compromise.
Part of the problem is the way policies are even campaigned. Labour will do this ... National will do this ... instead of Labour will ensure that these principles are considered when law is made OR The Greens will ensure that these ideas are considered when law is made.
If that were the mode of campaigning then we might see a different kind of government.
-
democracy also incorporates parties campaigning on platforms
It seems to me you are basing a lot of your thesis on the idea that having campaigned on a platform should allow the majority to enact that platform.
To me that is the whole problem with our system and is a legacy from FPP days. A party campaigns and then once it has power enacts that campaign ... without any further discussion or compromise.
It's that total lack of discussion or compromise or heaven forfend input of multiple groups to create a better law that is the flaw with our current style of government and is also the flaw in your thesis.
It is stupid to imagine one person or even one group with the same ideology can create the best possible law. Even more stupid to imagine that such a law would represent the wishes of most New Zealanders or be good for most New Zealanders.
The best decisions come from taking many ideas and opinions and working with a diverse group to make the best law.
Our current system doesn't do that because the politicians (and folks like you) can't imagine how to come to such joint decisions and instead insist that the dominant player gets to make all the calls. And this government is a clear example of that with Key's government repeatedly making big decisions with no discussion or even normal process.
What MMP is meant to achieve, and does in many other countries, is a parliament where several parties express viewpoints and laws are enacted to represent as many of those views as possible. A politics of compromise not of domination.
That it has failed to achieve that in NZ is sad and as long as folks like you continue to suggest that parties be allowed enact the laws they campaigned on (without compromise) then we will remain a country of domination with a 3 year refresh.
-
his macronic talents
he makes pasta too???
-
Failed Christmas cards:
that all of you will enjoy a relaxing and mucus-free Christmas
Ian sounds loverly, especially since he has now been outed as a cat person.
Have a great Christmas David, ours will be made happier as a result of your book.
-
But we still don’t really know what’s going to happen to them.
Does any parent? You guys have that mystery laid wide open in front of you and obvious but I don't think many parents can truly know what will happen for their children.
At least you have the awareness of that and have the bravery to face that unknown. I'm sure the love you have for your children will carry you through what ever happens.
-
one’s lady garden
And my beloved doesn't understand why I wouldn't go to the chinese restaurant down the street called "Granny Garden".
It may well have been quite good, and I'm sure it doesn't mean quite the same thing in chinese before they used alta vista to translate, but I'm sorry I'm just not going to go there for dinner.
-
Just a question for you rail geeks. I had heard that NZ rail networks used a narrow gauge that meant trains were limited in speed and also means that "standard trains and carriages used elsewhere do not work on NZ rails.
Even if that isn't true a decent rail network would require a lot of money. It would also be of tremendous benefit to everyone in Auckland, more benefit than more busses. The only issue is getting the money. How about we all agree to pay money into a pool that can be used to create a decent rail network and if necessary replace narrow gauge with wide gauge. We could agree to pay each according to their means. I'd suggest calling it a TAX or RATES or LEVY or some such word that means we pay money to get something. I'd be happy to pay I can't see why most folks wouldn't be keen to pay for something that valuable.
-
Up Front: The Up Front Guides: How to Be…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Oh honey, remember what happened the last time we counted?
You had to go out and improve your score?
-
I'm beginning to think the only sensible solution is to campaign for enforced same sex marriages. Every man, woman and child (we need to get them before they can form their own opinions) would be required to have at least one same sex husband/wife. Of course we probably could allow people to have opposite sex partners as well, perhaps using some sort of civil union.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
“how long?” and “did they suffer?”
We don’t know, but it is likely that the initial compression wave was lethal, the survivors were halfway out and the compression wave nearly killed them. A compression wave would knock them unconscious and kill them pretty much instantly, such compression waves were often the cause of death during war particularly for soldiers in heavily fortified bunkers.
My guess as to the next mostly likely causes would be asphyxiation as oxygen would have been used up in the initial explosion or if they had an oxygen source then carbon monoxide poisoning, both are reported to be painless deaths without suffering.
In short I doubt they would have suffered and I doubt they would have had much warning. But we don’t know.
However they died it is still tremendously sad for them, their families and for many other people, even those of us simply following the story in the media.