Hard News: He even has his Baldrick
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Should Gordon Copeland resign since he is a List MP? It is the problem when people act on Principle. It opens them to accusations of lack of principle!
-
If Taito Philip Field's party pulls a further 1% of the conservative Christian vote, so much the worse.
This depends on where Field pulls it from.
I've little doubt that Future New Zealand with 1 or 2 % of the vote will be to the detriment of a National-led coalition Government, but a Phillip Field-led party - assuming he actually runs - might instead pull coservative (perhaps PI) votes from Labour.
Field is conservative, and his supporters are conservative, but they're not market-liberals, they're Social Democrats who believe in a strong welfare state - just not a nanny state.
Time to start the discussion on the abolition of the undemocratic threshold? Certainly not my cup of tea, but Destiny New Zealand scored enough votes at the last election to get Richard Lewis into Parliament. What right in a democracy have the rest of us to tell them to stuff off unless they earn enough votes for 6 MPs?
-
Before Copeland slides from 'obscurity to oblivion' (credit John Armstrong, Herald) it's worth noting why he actually left his party. This has been largely lost in the media coverage, which has focused on the government's numbers in the House. But according to Martin Kay in today's Dom-Post:
"Mr Copeland said he had been uneasy for six months about United Future's decision to allow a conscience vote on the [Bradford] bill ..."
(emphasis added)
Being uneasy about being whipped (Duynhoven et al) is one thing. Being uneasy about NOT being whipped is quite another.
A politician quitting a party because he was allowed to do as he wished. A first?
-
Why isnt he just replaced by the next one on the list. Surely his place in parliment rests soley on the basis of UF's list entitlement? I'm reasonably new to MMP so somebody please explain.
-
Why isnt he just replaced by the next one on the list
I think the waka-jumping legislation had a finite time limit and no longer exists?
I was a bit confused as to Copeland's reasoning:1. He was opposed to the Bradford Bill, however he was allowed to vote against it
2. His vote was largely irrelevant as anything apart from a gesture as the Bill had about 90% support
3. He leaves his party cos it wasn't against the Bill altogether?
4. He still hands his confidence & supply vote to Labour, knowing that to bring the govt down now would signal electoral oblivionAnd he says he's resigning on a matter of principal? Sounds more like the opportunism that saw United Party set up in 1995 to me.
-
Robert - there are only MPs, not first class and second class MPs.
Gordon Copeland is in Parliament because enough people voted for the United Future list so that the top three people on that list would be in Parliament - he's in Parliament, so he's in Parliament - if people don't want him there, then they can kick him out in 2008.
Those who think list MPs are Clayton's MPs who don't have the rights of other MPs should be calling for the return of First Past the Post.
To be honest, I'm surprised Copeland didn't pull out an Anderton-esque I didn't leave my party, my party left me.
-
And I agree with Graham.
If Field pulls 1% from the conservative christian Pacific Island vote that will have a bigger impact upon Labour than National.
-
Paul - Copeland personally opposed the bill, but believed his party should also oppose the bill (as some 90%+ of its supporters agree). His personal opposition was so strong that he was not happy being a member of a political party that did not oppose the bill.
-
What right in a democracy have the rest of us to tell them to stuff off unless they earn enough votes for 6 MPs?
For the same reason we have 120-odd MPs rather than a nation-wide plebescite every time we wish to pass a law; a modicum of practicability. I am quite comfortable without New Zealand suffering the same fate as Italy or Israel - breakdown in the former case, and pandering to religious and racial extremists in the latter.
-
"I still find something a little tragic about a party whose flagship policy will be to restore the "right" to hit children."
I am amused Russell does this reflecrt your own spin?
I find it funny how the words people use to describe this piece of legislation reflects their view or the comment they are making .
Tthe media response to the legislation is just as bizzarre.TV One still refer to it as the anti-smacking bill, while TV Three and Natonal Radio now refer to the legislation as the "Parental Control Bill".
It may reflect their editorial stance!!
-
Graeme:
IF I voted for UF - and hence got Copland in - and he resigns and quits the party, I want another UF person in there. End of story. I voted for UF, not for him.
If I voted for him - as my electorate mp - and he got in, then I'd want him to say (actually, even if I _didn't_ vote for him!)
(all of that is kinda retorical, as there is no way I'd ever vote for UF, but you get the idea)
I agree, that there isn't a 1st and 2nd class of MP - UNTIL they resign. If you wanna resign: fine. If the people put you there, you stay (if you want to). If your party put you there, they shoudl also be able to remove you.
-
His personal opposition was so strong that he was not happy being a member of a political party that did not oppose the bill.
Or he saw the chance to launch a new one based on a single issue where the polls looked good? On Morning Report, that's how it sounded: he wants to campaign on rolling the Bill back (despite having only Act voting with him- they'll campaign on it too, for sure).
-
nic - IF you voted for UF then it's highly likely you wanted your party to vote against the anti-smacking bill and would also like them to promise to repeal it.
This is what you'd have wanted...
-
So Copeland is arguing AGAINST a conscience vote.
But the opponents of the bill have been arguing FOR a conscience vote, in the belief (probably correct) that it would not have had the numbers, pre-Key/Clark compromise.
Copeland's position is absurd.
-
Cheers Graeme, I do see where he is coming from. The inverse is, of course, if he felt that strongly about it, it would have been nothing for Dunne to change his mind about the legislation given that another nay vote wouldn't have materially affected the outcome.
Nothing, apart from ego, face saving, bloody mindedness etc
-
I am amused Russell does this reflecrt your own spin?
If by "spin", you mean "point of view", I guess it does.
-
On the Hitchens article, I think it is one of the most dishonest he has ever written.
If I may shamelessly link
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/lies-and-lying-liar-who-tells-them-part.html
-
Larry Flynt On Jerry Falwell:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah5356.shtml?dst=rss|general_rss
-
Yes, Copeland is arguing against a conscience vote - did he ever argue in favour of one (perhaps other than rhetorically)? Or did he instead seek to argue the merits of the bill (or argue that the consciences of certain Government MPs should force them to leave the Government)?
I suspect his view is that as UF is a strong supporter of New Zealand families it should have been opposing a bill that would make something most New Zealand families consider a pretty normal part of raising a family a criminal offence.
There is nothing absurd in saying that this bill should not be a conscience vote (and nothing absurd in saying that it should, either).
-
Graeme: I dont see what him resigning has to do with the vote - even tho it's the reason.
Sorry, I have a BIG issue with the behaviour of NZ MP's when they decide they dont wanna play the party game anymore.
-
Graeme
True. Neither position is absurd, alone. But together they are.
Copeland's stated reason for leaving UF is this "principle".
He is forming a new (old) party, joining Baldock, the referendum campaigner, who works with the likes of Family First. Here's their position (just one example of many):
Media Release: 03-05-07 Family First Calls for Clark and Key to Allow Conscience Vote on Bill
If Copeland wants to fight the bill, that's fine. But to say that he is resigning on PRINCIPLE is false.
Alternatively, his principle is the precise opposite of his new supporters and/or party members.
-
Graham: he did pull a jim anderton esque / peter dunne esque line.
Roger: Israel is a US proxy, washington decides its policy.
To quote Graham Copeland: "i need to be in a party which listens to the ppl of nz, who are 80% opposed to the anti smacking bill ,which will become the law of nz tonight (16.5) and to make a clear committment to repeal that law"
He also said the "smacking bill" (media were told not to use this term, some still do, agreed Neil it does reflect ideology) was the "tipping point" but said "the longer perter dunne has led the party the worse it became" "it" being the differences of the two initial parties i.e. christian values vs liberal values.
Is that figure still 80%? will it be in 6 months? will be interesting
-
Copeland's rationale for resigning seems more that United Future won't adopt a policy that it will undo this given the chance, rather than anything shorter term.
In this sense, his defection is more akin to how the Greens left the Alliance - we won't be standing with you at the next election, so it would be wrong for us to stay in your party now.
-
sorry about that spelling Graeme..
-
If Copeland wants to fight the bill, that's fine. But to say that he is resigning on PRINCIPLE is false.
Or his principle is that the Government shouldn't interfere in NZer's family lives. And he doesn't want to be a member of a political party that doesn't hold to that principle.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.