Silly Little Girl
“why didn’t Labour fix [insert pet peeve], they had nine years to do it?”
Was [insert pet peeve] actually that broken?
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.
The above is not a valid excuse for failure or the basis for a shift to a four year term - if that is what you are suggesting?
I acknowledge that as managers of the economy the last Labour government were better.
If you take the current National Govt then seriously do budgets (and associated Treasury forecasts) have any real relevance - the answer to this is No - with this current lot the forecasts and budgets are so out of whack they are beyond reason - perhaps best to include each of those .years from 2008 with - "making shit up".
The role of government is to legislate and manage the economy, how effectively they are likely to or actually do this is the basis upon which a vote should be exercised.. Three years is enough to prove you can do it or if you are opposition present an alternative.
it seems obvious to me that they are in a position on this issue where they must excuse themselves from voting on it .... so yes a referendum is the only way to make a change here
this deafeats the position you suggest - say the Nats campaign with a policy that makes specific provision for a four year term and they win - then they will say they have a mandate and just do it - the vast majority of voters may be against it but it happens anyway vis a vis.asset sales.
Shearer in also agreeing on a four year term - playing the reasonable man card or whatever it is he plays - seems like a such dumb arse.
Wouldn't it be classic if the Nats campaigned highlighting their polices as endorsed by David Shearer - if I was running their campaign that's how I would kick it off.
Quack Quack - Ka Boom - What's that silence? David Dead Duck Shearer.
If there was a referendum then give us three options being a two year, three year and four year term and then take the average outcome of that – which would more likely fall in the two to three year option.
That's not how the reserved section is drafted. Some alternative needs the support of at least 50% of voters.
What I am saying is that is how I would want a vote on term to work - or voters get to rate the options in order of preference.
I can't envisage that many people other than the MPs want a longer term.
better governed, on average.
What is your/the measure of better government?
Does someone have the evidence to show that UK, France, South Africa, Italy and Germany are better governed than NZ?
Consider the mess the world is largely from lack of regulation of financial markets and the considerable clout of corporations and govt over private citizens - has a longer parliamentary term made it any better for people?
Is there a disadvantage for a shift from a three year to a four year cycle in NZ.
In the last Labour Govt Michael Cullen said, to the Labour Caucus??, some thing along the lines of, "We only want to consider what the voters think in the lead up to an election" – This is basically the only time the major political parties have a real interest in the voter.
My preference is, as a voter, I exercise my choice every three years rather than every four.
I ask myself this - Do I want people like John Banks, Brendan Horan and others sitting on their arse at the taxpayers expense for a longer or shorter term?
There is more to worry about than just the term when you consider the Act - John Banks, Don Brash, John Key, Teapot Saga.
With a longer term the opposition will likely be more fatigued and ineffective.
The politicians are only looking to change for their benefit. The rationale they trot out for supporting the change is crap – planning long term over a three-year cycle as opposed to four – I would consider that a three-year cycle provides more flexibility.
Keep it as it is or failing that reduce it to two years as per Ben's post above.
If there was a referendum then give us three options being a two year, three year and four year term and then take the average outcome of that - which would more likely fall in the two to three year option.
Housework, and organised child's play for daughter and her friends - consisted of the "kidz" racing each other in scooters around the common area and also playing Zombie tag - which I understand is a licence to scream louder.
I sat in the studio (basement tool store) playing guitar through a monster pedal board (pet project) with the door ajar so I could keep and eye on them and they could come in and out to chat.
The play culminated in the kids all sitting in the couch in the garage watching a DVD in the mini theatre area created in the basement for the communal benefit of the apartment block's kidz - provided them with pop corn and chilled drink.
my passing thoughts were about how the attitude to “Native Affairs” has changed since the 1960s/70s and the pressures resulting from irresponsible and failing govts and policy settings had resulted in a greater number of people getting hammered – representative of the equality of opportunity the "free" market presents - the high rates of "youth" unemployment scared me and I am more than a little concerned for the future.
you mean Maori and all citizens represented by the Crown (including Maori)?
How accurate - the reported truth is never accurate.