Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:08AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

I'm less sanguine than Brian Rudman about the possibility of asset sales in undesirable circumstances. But I'm not a great fan of frequent referendums to determine local government policy. I'll tell you who is, though: Rodney Hide.

So, Twyford and Hide are both full of opportunistic shit? Funny that... and why do I have the sneaking suspicion that both men would lose their taste for opinion poll pseudo-democracy the nano-second the results weren't to their liking?

Posted at 10:15AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

And to be fair, Twyford and Hide wouldn't piss me off quite so much if I didn't think they're both capable of a LOT BETTER.

Posted at 10:53AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

So, Twyford and Hide are both full of opportunistic shit?

I imagine we will be waiting a very long while before the merits of citzen referenda restricting NZ government asset sales gains inclusion in Labour Party manifesto. Opportunity knocks, after all what is good for the goose... and all that shit.

Posted at 11:04AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Meanwhile, David Farrar warmly endorses Rudman's dismissal of referendums on asset sales -- having warmly endorsed Rodney Hide's proposal for referendums on individual spending decisions less than a month ago. How odd.

Posted at 11:09AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Twyford originally proposed this measure as part of the filibuster on the Auckland dictatorship bill. I think it'd be good if it passed, but that's because I don't see it as being triggered very frequently - and then I damn well want people to have a say if a rightwing council wants to go back to the 90's and flog everything off. When it comes to privatisation, I just don't think we can trust our politicians, and so we shouldn't delegate that power to them.

(Though I'd rather see a version covering the whole country than one specifically for Auckland).

And remember, while a bill may have no hope in hell of passing, sometimes its still worth it to force the government to debate an issue and get everyone to go on record about it.

Posted at 11:17AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

And remember, while a bill may have no hope in hell of passing, sometimes its still worth it to force the government to debate an issue and get everyone to go on record about it.

Yes, that's the value I see in it.

Posted at 11:20AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

and then I damn well want people to have a say if a rightwing council wants to go back to the 90's and flog everything off. When it comes to privatisation, I just don't think we can trust our politicians, and so we shouldn't delegate that power to them.

While I certainly need a time out on the naughty step on that score, perhaps more people should "have their say" at the ballot box and make sure that there are more people than chairs at meet the candidate meetings.

Meanwhile, Idiot/Savant, if you're happy to respect the outcome if people turn out to be quite keen on "flogging everything off" -- and Rodney is happy to abide by those who think tax-and-spend local government is A-OK -- then fair enough. I just have my doubts that referenda-fetishists operate with that much good faith.

Posted at 11:21AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Oh, I should also note that I'd like to see a version applying to SOEs as well. Its not just our local body politicians I don't trust on this issue.

Posted at 11:23AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

And finally: Cameron Slater is "involved in all National's internal debates"? For serious?

That's cause, as I understand it, Slater's part of a talent development program led by graduate Michael Laws.

Posted at 11:23AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

And frankly, many Aucklanders do feel dictated to by Hide, and by the government, over the future of their city.

So Twyford wants to get some of that action himself?

If he looks forward to Act supporting his bill, I presume he's going to be backing theirs? Given they also want to define what a local council can and can't do under a representational democracy. Surely his comment about the "significant and irreversible" parts of Hide's plan should have been in glowing support, not hypocritical contempt?

Referenda (or deferred decisions to election) aren't all bad. Sale of significant assets (although not defined by Wellington on some register thanks) seems like something that needs clear mandated support. So in that it seems that both Labour and ACT agree - the fact that ACT wants to take it further is a valid discussion point between them but guys, you're now playing on the same team. You're just arguing how far to punt it downfield (really should leave the sport metaphors to Mr Haydn)

Posted at 11:32AM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Meanwhile, Idiot/Savant, if you're happy to respect the outcome if people turn out to be quite keen on "flogging everything off" -- and Rodney is happy to abide by those who think tax-and-spend local government is A-OK -- then fair enough. I just have my doubts that referenda-fetishists operate with that much good faith.

If people vote for it, then while I can dispute its wisdom, I can't dispute the fact that it would be the will of the people. And that's what's important here. Remember, democracy isn't about making good decisions, its about making our decisions.

Posted at 1:03PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

A problem I have with referendums (or a)is that the decisions have to be informed, and the source of information depends on who has the most money to spend on advertising. When it comes to flogging off our assets, including SOEs, the people who will benefit most are the people who have the most money.

It took some years to recover my nail growth when we were looking at alternatives to FPP.

Posted at 1:16PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Remember, democracy isn't about making good decisions, its about making our decisions.

Isn't it about choosing people to make our decisions? Or perhaps a little more accurately, it's about infrequently voting between a few choices of people who might participate in making a decision, and a few others who certainly won't get to participate.

A problem I have with referendums (or a)is that the decisions have to be informed, and the source of information depends on who has the most money to spend on advertising. When it comes to flogging off our assets, including SOEs, the people who will benefit most are the people who have the most money.

Couldn't the same be said of elections?

It makes me sad that it's taken as read that the only sources of information for the population are advertisers. Letting advertisers inform you is about as bad as letting politicians make your choices.

Posted at 1:29PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

If people vote for it, then while I can dispute its wisdom, I can't dispute the fact that it would be the will of the people

Prop 8 might have been the will of the people, but I think that it is a constitutional error that minority rights can be overrode by the will of the people. Prop 13 might have been the will of the people, but it was definitely a constitutional error to set it up so that taxes could be limited like that, and California has literally run out of money over that,

Also, the people who vote on these things aren't `the people' exactly; they're a subset of the people that tends towards older & better off, and this isn't exactly equitable.

Posted at 1:34PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Isn't it about choosing people to make our decisions?

Only if you focus on the particular representative model we use, rather than the broad idea itself.

As for representative democracy, there's no need for it to be absolute, and ours isn't. For example, we don't trust our politicians to make decisions about who gets to vote and how often. They have no delegation from the people on that issue, and unless there's a supermajority (which can generally be taken as a proxy for wide agreement) they have to ask us before dicking around with it. I like that model, and want to see it expanded.

Such expansion can be taken too far - Hide's ideas about a referendum for councils to increase rates is ridiculous. But I have no problem with cautiously expanding the sphere of things we don't trust politicians on. And I think privatisation - something where public opinion seems to differ widely from that held by politicians - is a perfect candidate. Another obvious one is the BORA - politicians shouldn't be able to muck around with that or even impliedly repeal portions without our permission.

(ohhh... now there's a good one. Make an s7 report mean a referendum or supermajority for third reading. But that would mean the A-G would twist the law even further than they do at present to avoid making such a report...)

Posted at 1:37PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Prop 8 might have been the will of the people, but I think that it is a constitutional error that minority rights can be overrode by the will of the people.

Indeed. But we're not talking about removing or confirming people's oppression here - we're talking about stopping politicians from selling our stuff.

On the more general issue, I would like to see a BORA check on referenda (because there's none at the moment). But at the end of the day, you can't get into forbidding votes on certain issues, because that road rapidly leads to Honduras.

Posted at 1:37PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Also, the people who vote on these things aren't `the people' exactly; they're a subset of the people that tends towards older & better off, and this isn't exactly equitable.

Well, you can always try and convince people to vote. And if the issue is important enough to them, they will.

Posted at 2:01PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Well, you can always try and convince people to vote. And if the issue is important enough to them, they will.

This is not what has been found in the past.

(And this concept of the popular will is a bit muddled --- is it the will of the California people that the state go bankrupt? Probably not...)

Posted at 2:10PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Remember, democracy isn't about making good decisions, its about making our decisions.

Good government is about making good decisions. Direct democracy is (as I/S rightly points out) not about making good decisions.

Representative democracy allows the people censure over those empowered by the people, this disempowers politicians who fail to practice good government.

Direct democracy requires such oversimplification of government that bad government becomes almost inevitable and yet applies no censure to those who fail to practice good government. It is a recipe for bad government.

Posted at 2:14PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Only if you focus on the particular representative model we use, rather than the broad idea itself.

I like the broad idea, but we're stuck with the representative model. Referenda are allowed, but apart from CIRs (which seem to be a joke), the questions in the referenda are set by the representatives. Back to square one. Of course one can agitate for a referendum, but you can agitate directly for your cause just as easily. You've probably got a better chance that way, so long as you time your agitation for when a sympathetic power bloc is has been 'chosen by the will of the people'.

Posted at 2:23PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Direct democracy requires such oversimplification of government that bad government becomes almost inevitable and yet applies no censure to those who fail to practice good government. It is a recipe for bad government.

I guess by 'Direct Democracy' you mean lots of referenda? I'm yet to see any kind of government that you could unilaterally call 'Good'. About the best thing we can say about representative democracy is that there have been much worse systems.

Posted at 2:30PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

About the best thing we can say about representative democracy is that there have been much worse systems.

Yes, one of which is rule-by-referenda.

And I think privatisation - something where public opinion seems to differ widely from that held by politicians - is a perfect candidate

Which politicians? They aren't a homogeneous mass, after all.

(And why shouldn't the same arguments apply to rates & taxes? Also things which are ours...)

Posted at 2:36PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

I guess if John Key wanted to show a hitherto unsuspected talent for stand up comedy, he could call both Twyford and Hide's bluff, and propose a government bill to make all "significant" asset sales and purchases (and throw in "significant" rates and user charge hikes) by local government subject to referrenda. I confidently predict the House would be inexpensively redecorated with skull fragments and brain matter in very short order.

Posted at 2:38PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Yes, one of which is rule-by-referenda.

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

Posted at 2:39PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

About the best thing we can say about representative democracy is that there have been much worse systems.

Have we got a thread for you...

Posted at 2:51PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

lol, no thanks...I read Plato's Republic too, I know how long this debate is going to last.

Posted at 2:53PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

That's if you can call something a debate where one side thinks the other are too ignorant to rule and the other thinks the first side is too arrogant.

Posted at 2:59PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

Though after seeing the frankly terrifying PBS doco Ten Trillion And Counting on TVNZ7 last night, I wonder if a genuine and rigorous "paygo' rule for both local and central government would do a damn sight more to encourage genuine fiscal discipline, transparency and accountability than anything either Hide or Twyford has on the table. Of course, the irony is that in the US 'paygo' was introduced by President Bush Snr. (whose genuine fiscal conservatism.was a political disaster) and a Democrat-controlled Congress, and ultimately gutted by his son and a Republican majority -- who were determined not to commit the elder's "mistake".

Posted at 3:10PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

Switzerland.

Posted at 3:25PM on 6 Jul 09. Permalink.

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

California. (Where it has been a disaster.)