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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

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...

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

Switzerland.

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

California. (Where it has been a disaster.)

Switzerland.

Of course, that's not what is being proposed here, and it is dishonest to suggest it.

Have we got a thread for you...

OMFG! I just read that.

I think our Green friends didn't exactly come out of that thread covering themselves in glory,that is unless a form of Utopian Fascism is your cup of tea (a heads up guys – the governance model of the?

It's been tried? Cool! Where?

Switzerland comes close. They have regular referendums at both a Federal and Canton (state) level. Canton level referendums can be held on just about anything and Federal referendums can be called to vote on whether to overturn a law within 100 days of it being?

I confidently predict the House would be inexpensively redecorated with skull fragments and brain matter in very short order.

The Taiwanese don't seem to have much of an problem with it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFBhceg6ooY

I am sure I am not the only person who thinks the coverage of the Sophie Elliot trial has descended to the level of coarse pornography.

Certainly not; it's disgusting, and I hope certain editors are being told so.

(& this is on the back of the largest state economy; that's impressively bad governance.)

I am sure I am not the only person who thinks the coverage of the Sophie Elliot trial has descended to the level of coarse pornography.

No you're not, but that's somewhat unfair on "coarse pornography" whose who purpose is to induce orgasm in its coarse audience. Anyone cracking a?

Apparently California is about to get a huge financial leg-up this week with the funeral.

I read that in a Sunday paper.

switzerland is not famous for its bad government either

It sort of is. It has tended to have a bit of a drag on change. The poster-boy example for this (which may overstate its negative effects) is that women didn't get the vote in Switzerland until 1971.

[[http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/chronology-womens-right-vote-switzerland.html|One hardy bunch?

switzerland is not famous for its bad government either

No. It is famous for being a heavily armed, highly conservative, insular country with retrograde immigration laws, secretive mega-capitalist banks, the UN and some damn fine ski resorts.

No. It is famous for being a heavily armed, highly conservative, insular country with retrograde immigration laws, secretive mega-capitalist banks, the UN and some damn fine ski resorts.

Sounds boringly well managed to me.

The state constitution can, and has, been amended with 50%+1 votes. Through this method, various restrictions on what fiscal decisions the legislature can make have been enacted. Basically, they?

California being bankrupt is like Donald Trump being bankrupt. A minor setback. But are you seriously blaming it all on 'direct democracy'? They have representative democracy last I heard.

Seriously, wtf? It is just nonsense to say it is a minor setback that CA is going bust during the one?

Seriously, wtf? It is just nonsense to say it is a minor setback that CA is going bust during the one of the worst recessions in fifty odd years.

If California was a corporation, it'd be in Chapter 11 right now.

Kong, the problem here is that you essentially don't know what you're talking about :). At least in respect of California.

You really think this is a serious debate man? It's a joke. I actually?

Not because they are a direct democracy (they aren't) but because the place is run by silly self serving arseholes.

Who, in the case of the state's referendum system, are the people of California. The actual elected representatives would doubtless love to be able to levy taxation fairly and try?

Not because they are a direct democracy (they aren't) but because the place is run by silly self serving arseholes.

No, it isn't run by self-serving assholes, that's the whole bloody point. The so called self-serving assholes can't do a damn thing, because of Prop 13, which was instituted by,?

California has recently made some silly choices

Note that Prop. 13 has been in place for over 30 years, resulting in a gradual stranglehold on state funding, which even Democratic legislatures have been powerless to address.

A charming bunch of focussed idealogues celebrating 10 years of democracy.

Not a good place to be be in a low-status job.

I think that can be said of many countries, including this one.
Its queer how one's occupation has a status, it puts me in mind of the Hindi caste system. A low status job doesnt make anyone any less?

Research: back in the early '90s research in NZ got butchered. It was billed as hitching science to the 'Knwoledge Economy' but it was a power grab. Largely by the Medics who were pissed that they couldn't get MRC (now?

On the more general issue, I would like to see a BORA check on referenda (because there's none at the moment).

Well, there is a check on binding referendums – because each binding referendum requires legislation to give it force, and that legislation is subject to a check (binding local?

*I suggested some areas of directed funding, but thoroughly agree that just 'funding for research in science' – and o yes,?

What alternatives would people like the govt to invest in?

Early stage innovation funding and support, management and governance training, high value creative and knowledge industries not subject to the tyranny of distance from markets.

Whanau-oriented wrap-around social services that harness existing community strengths.

The kind of stuff we can?

The panel is Phil Twyford, Rhema Vaithianathan and myself

Who is myself? Why does he spell his name with a lower-case letter? Wait. Perhaps this odd use of the reflexive pronoun gives gravitas where there is none. Who will be there? Not boring old me, that's for sure. No, it?

I think Twyford's bill has a couple of purposes. The first is to point out the hypocrisy of Rodney Hide's general support of referendums while not wanting one to?

Whanau-oriented wrap-around social services that harness existing community strengths.
The kind of stuff we can do as a young Pacific nation with global connections and talented, pragmatic people.
Something ambitious.

Nice though I would like measures to ensure it isn't driven by dogmas but we have in place studies?

They provide legal means to enforce the status quo public position.

I think the date of women's voting rights in Switzerland (1971/1990) I mentioned on the previous page pretty clearly reflects that...

But there are a lot of things to be said for Switzerland so it's hardly the knockdown argument against direct democracy that Angus seemed to think.

The Swiss are the European byword for "conservative" politics and yes it works well within their direct democracy. Depends on how you view?

I think Twyford's bill has a couple of purposes. The first is to point out the hypocrisy of Rodney Hide's general support of referendums while not wanting one to verify the Super City (or generally for anything he thinks the result won't be to his liking).

Well, couldn't Twyford take?

I think Twyford's bill has a couple of purposes. The first is to point out the hypocrisy of Rodney Hide's general support of referendums while not wanting one to verify the Super City (or generally for anything he thinks the result won't be to his liking).

Well, couldn't Twyford take?

I think the date of women's voting rights in Switzerland (1971/1990) I mentioned on the previous page pretty clearly reflects that...

In 2003 they allowed for the grandchildren of immigrants to naturalise as Swiss if born in Switzerland.

Um, the State of California is pretty much bankrupt. They're going to have to start paying employees in IOUs.

Given that that's what money is anyway, that's not too much difference.

Well, couldn't Twyford take a call in the general debate and do that?

Doing it this way is more fun, and gets an hour devoted solely to the topic, rather than a 10-minute call. And at the end of it, you get a Hansard record of exactly where everyone stood?

Well, couldn't Twyford take a call in the general debate and do that?

That would only achieve the first purpose though. And this is a more obvious way to point out Act's hypocrisy.

Doing it this way is more fun, and gets an hour devoted solely to the topic, rather than a 10-minute call. And at the end of it, you get a Hansard record of exactly where everyone stood – which is quite useful on an issue like this.

I think the?

Doing it this way is more fun, and gets an hour devoted solely to the topic, rather than a 10-minute call.

[Parliamentary procedure nerd alert]

The first reading debate of a member's bill is a 65-minute debate; and calls in the general debate are 5 minutes each, not 10.

And this is a more obvious way to point out Act's hypocrisy.

About that, the charge of hypocrisy is going to be what? I mean the Labour party is arguing that it is perfectly okay to place?

There is a time and a place for MPs to endorse innovative and by all accounts highly effective vehicles for agenda driven policy. The time is in the first term of government and the place is from the Treasury Benches. Because?

Doing it this way is more fun,

Oh, great, I knew I was paying my taxes for something...

That would only achieve the first purpose though. And this is a more obvious way to point out Act's hypocrisy.

Jesus fucking Christ, Joshua — so now they don't let Twyford issue?

Angus, I understand from our discussions here that Hide's hypocrisy is his promotion of a Bill requiring widespread Council referendums while?

ACT supports referendums on spending decisions so is hypocritical if it opposes referendums on selling decisions.

Labour supports referendums on selling decisions so is hypocritical if it opposes referendums on spending decisions.

gave huge powers to the hand-picked Transition Authority

Here's a recent example:

Just a one liner at the bottom of a Supercity story in the Herald today, to the effect that the TA has taken upon itself the legal powers to appoint the second and third tier of officers for?

Since then they have been negotiating their way into the bits of Europe they want to be part of. A time consuming and?

As Russell notes, Twyford sounds flexible about how that goal is achieved. I doubt his Bill is really expected to go anywhere other than providing some topical focus and perhaps leverage.

I think that's the case, which is why it's so fortunate for him that it's been drawn at precisely?

Interestingly, I asked Phil on the panel at Locally Left tonight whether he'd be happy with something like a council supermajority requirement (eg: 75%) to achieve the same goal — making asset sales hard — and he said that he would.

Sounds reasonable; we use that sort of supermajority as?

Referenda are a little binary too, in 1992 the Swiss (78.7%) of them at least voted 49.7% yes and 50.3% no to joining the European economic area.

Representative democracy and parliamentary law-making are just as binary. How would it be any different if 49.7% of MPs voted yes, and 50.3%?

Representative democracy and parliamentary law-making are just as binary. How would it be any different if 49.7% of MPs voted yes, and 50.3% voted no on legislation that would mean Switzerland would join the European economic area?

With representative democracy you are a step removed, it was not all those?

Given that that's what money is anyway, that's not too much difference.

Except for the fact that the word of the State of California really isn't worth as much as the word of the United States of America.

Representative democracy and parliamentary law-making are just as binary.

But you can?

Given that that's what money is anyway, that's not too much difference.

But normally money is an IOU given out when there's actually something to back it up.

In this case it's an IOU given out because the state doesn't have anything to back it up.

Given that that's what money is anyway, that's not too much difference.

huh? Money is legal tender, not an IOU. California doesn't issue money, it uses money issued by the Federal Reserve. If you have to call money an IOU, it's an IOU that's backed by the issuing bank. California?

Act/National are right wing political parties – they support empowering taxpayers to limit taxes. Labour are a left wing political party – they support empowering communities to protect council assets. Is it hypocritical for them to behave in ways 100% consistent with their political leanings?

Graham,

Oops – I meant:

Graeme,

We all know that a?

Jesus fucking Christ, Joshua — so now they don't let Twyford issue press releases, talk to the media or anyone else without supervision? Sorry, Joshua, but saying "fuck you" to Rodney Hide is a petty and piss poor use of Parliamentary time, but whatever floats your boat.

Craig surely you?

Craig surely you realise the purpose of a private member's bill half the time is to raise the awareness of an issue – either to pressure the government into adopting the bill (unlikely in this situation) or to just simply raise the public awareness of the issue (which clearly?

The point is that Rodney Hide has said he's really into referendums, but at the same time has avoided on on the Auckland super-city issue?

Off topic a bit – how come National constantly vote as a bloc on conscience issues lately? Are the MPs not allowed to think for themselves?

Well we have seen when a Nat is slightly off side to Key, e.g. Maurice ended up the back and Worth started on the?

However, I do think the main purpose of this private member's bill is to protect Auckland's assets from privatisation – unless the consent of the people via referendum has been obtained.

I'd take that more seriously if 'Auckland' was removed and 'all city/district/regional' councils was implemented.

Bandwagon jumping much.

Very enjoyable day, but I collapsed into a slumber without coming here to report back. I've posted about the show on t'other thread, and will return here about the select committee soon. Breakfast first.