Hard News: The file-sharing bill
340 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Perhaps you should be the new adviser, Russell?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
They were at their best keeping in touch when Mike Munro was handling communications. Once he left for a private sector job, those who replaced him didn't quite fill his shoes.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What Labour should do now is emphasise its Christchurch MPs' connection with the city
Coherent, well-crafted communication would be useful, yes
-
3410,
It would not have stopped the bill.
I keep hearing this argument, but I just do not get it.
For starters, if ever that were not the case, the govt. would therefore no longer have the confidence of the House and would have to call an election.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
For starters, if ever that were not the case, the govt. would therefore no longer have the confidence of the House and would have to call an election.
uh, no. Only if the government fails to get a majority on a confidence or supply motion is that true. It's possible (and has happened) for the government to fail to pass legislation without bringing about an election.
-
3410,
uh, no. Only if the government fails to get a majority on a confidence or supply motion is that true. It's possible (and has happened) for the government to fail to pass legislation without bringing about an election.
Okay, sure, it's possible, but in the normal state of affairs a govt. that can not pass its legislation is circling the drain, which is to say that by far the most normal situation will be that Labour, when in opposition, can not stop a Nat. bill by opposing it. That's a fact. How can it follow that they should therefore not vote against it?; they'd end up voting for all govt. legislation.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It's possible (and has happened) for the government to fail to pass legislation without bringing about an election
Technically, yes. But if it's failing to pass legislation, it is usually because its coalition is falling apart or it's internally divided, even.
I take 3410s point as hinting that failing to stop a bill is not the only reason to vote against it. That's an unlikely outcome anyway, even at the worst of times. You could vote against it because you disagree with it. Actually voting for it, is a traditional indicator of agreement. That's my understanding of what the phrase "vote for" means. If it doesn't, then I really don't get our parliament at all*.
Now sure, there is an argument that if you don't vote for this, then they'll do something worse. But that's rather undermined by the fact that "it won't stop the bill". They won't do something worse because the bill passes. What does happen, however, is that the Opposition is on record for having dozens of their members officially voting something they disagreed with into law. IF they disagreed. I can't actually know if they don't vote using the usual meaning of the phrase "vote for".
*Edit: A distinct possibility
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
I keep hearing this argument, but I just do not get it.
What I'm picking up, notably from Lianne Dalziel's comments on Red Alert, is that Labour's Chch MPs got some sort of concession they felt was vital for their constituents, in return for voting with the Government. What I'm hazy on is what the concession was, and what consequences they feared from voting against.
-
3410,
Besides, what does voting for legislation that you disagree with get you?
On the one hand, it gets you a few meagre compromises from the govt. (and they'll very quickly learn to factor such "compromises" into future legislation).
On the other hand, you've just pissed away any legitimacy in complaining about any future negative consequences of the act.
How is that a good deal?
-
3410,
What I'm picking up, notably from Lianne Dalziel's comments on Red Alert, is that Labour's Chch MPs got some sort of concession they felt was vital for their constituents. What I'm hazy on is what the concession was, and what consequences they feared from voting against.
That may be so, but if the act is seriously faulty, how is that Labour's fault?
If Labour is against something then they should vote against it, and when the shit hits the fan they can say "National did that, and that's why you should vote for us, not them".
-
Okay, sure, it’s possible, but in the normal state of affairs a govt. that can not pass its legislation is circling the drain
Yeah but nah – that’s a peculiarly FPP view of government.
In the MMP environment, parties can govern very effectively by negotiating in good faith with other parties
firstly, to ensure a stable majority for confidence and supply (which is how parties get to form a government in the first place); and then
secondly, to create sufficient agreement to pass legislation on other issues (which may mean working with different people for different bills).
The catch is that open negotiation should then be the “normal state of affairs” – rather than National’s somewhat diametrically opposed manner of operation.If Labour is against something then they should vote against it
+ several thousand.
(And clearly state WHY they oppose it.) -
BenWilson, in reply to
In the MMP environment, parties can govern very effectively by negotiating in good faith with other parties
Yes, that's particularly true if these good faith negotiations involve their Opposition voting how they are told to by the government. Extremely effective. So effective, that any party that could swing that would seem like the natural party of government for as long as the Opposition allowed it. Hell, I might even vote for that party. Why not - voting against won't stop them getting in?
-
If Labour is against something then they should vote against it, and when the shit hits the fan they can say “National did that, and that’s why you should vote for us, not them”.
Well sometimes. But the proposed legislation might be something that you’re not happy with, but which is better than the current state of affairs, so you might vote for it.
In this instance, for whatever reason, the govt clearly made an offer to labour to improve the legislation as long as Labour voted for it straight through, no amendments etc.
It’s possible that if Labour hadn’t voted for it, the government would have pulled the improvements and due to them voting against it would be worse law.
So sometimes there are clearly judgement calls to be made.
-
If Labour had any reason to be confident in its comms ability, then they could explain why they voted against the CERA bill, tell voters positively what their preferred solution would be and campaign on that basis to become the government so they can fix any problems after November.
That is what political parties have done for many. many decades. Passing bills is not the be-all and end-all; there are a range of ways to shape political discourse. We've all seen parties in power change course in the face of well-organised opposition between elections. Labour backing down on Closing the Gaps in the face of Brash's racist dog-whistling is one instance.
Instead, we get more feeble fudging from this hapless bunch of losers fed by what seems to be a presumption that anything this government does now is not up for challenge for 4 years because the opposition lacks the balls to make it otherwise. I hope they are ashamed of themselves.
-
3410,
It’s possible that if Labour hadn’t voted for it, the government would have pulled the improvements and due to them voting against it would be worse law.
Yes, it would be worse law, but not "due to [Labour] voting against it"; due to National introducing it and garnering enough support to have it passed.
(But yeah, Kyle, totally agree that it's not black-and-white).
-
Sacha, in reply to
not "due to [Labour] voting against it"; due to National introducing it and garnering enough support to have it passed.
..and due to National being far better right now at political strategy and communication than Labour - despite their own manifest failures that would provide ample fodder for any half-competent opposition.
-
Sacha, in reply to
If Labour is against something then they should vote against it, and when the shit hits the fan they can say "National did that, and that's why you should vote for us, not them".
They need to communicate well before that. You do not need to wait to do stuff. That's where Pagani's message of hopelessness seems way wrong to me.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I hope they are ashamed of themselves.
Say what you really feel!
It’s possible that if Labour hadn’t voted for it, the government would have pulled the improvements and due to them voting against it would be worse law.
What 3410 said. It seems an unlikely scenario to me, that they would repeal their own bill, and introduce a shittier one, just to spite Labour for not bending over.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
If Labour had any reason to be confident in its comms ability, then they could explain why they voted against the CERA bill, tell voters positively what their preferred solution would be and campaign on that basis to become the government so they can fix any problems after November.
Which might've been a credible response to the file-sharing bill, but is actually very much not a credible response to CERA when it's full of draconian powers that will be available for use immediately because "it's an emergency". Plus, in Labour's current situation it would be a hard sell to the public to justify things on "We'll change this really bad law in November." Because if they don't win in November we're stuck with "this really bad law" for at least three more years, by which time it'll be thoroughly embedded, and if they do win in November there's nothing to stop them passing the changes they want to see.
Lots of black-and-white analysis in here of a very grey problem.
As for National "repeal[ing] their own bill, and introduc[ing] a shittier one", why not? It's not hard. They have the votes to do anything they want, and we don't know which sections were amendments inserted at Labour's behest. National could've just put in an amended bill, since this was all done under urgency. The rules are not the same as they are for ordinary procedure.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Which might've been a credible response to the file-sharing bill, but is actually very much not a credible response to CERA when it's full of draconian powers that will be available for use immediately because "it's an emergency".
Fair point.
Plus, in Labour's current situation it would be a hard sell to the public to justify things on "We'll change this really bad law in November."
What, harder than "we don't like it but we voted for it anyway but we can't really say why"?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Lots of black-and-white analysis in here of a very grey problem.
Meh, sometimes things aren't as complicated as they can be made to seem.
why not? It's not hard. They have the votes to do anything they want, and we don't know which sections were amendments inserted at Labour's behest. National could've just put in an amended bill, since this was all done under urgency.
This would be done after having passed their own bill? I don't think they'd want to look like such fools. Indeed, I don't think they really want it to become bigger news, that they have used urgency for something like this. It would be the perfect example of why NOT to do that.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
This would be done after having passed their own bill? I don’t think they’d want to look like such fools. Indeed, I don’t think they really want it to become bigger news, that they have used urgency for something like this. It would be the perfect example of why NOT to do that.
The agreement by Labour to vote for the Bill had to have been made before the Bill was presented to the House, though. Otherwise how did they get their compromise position inserted?
If you're suggesting that Labour should've then welched on the deal and voted against the Bill despite having agreed to vote for it in order to get their compromise, then you're advocating that Labour behave in bad faith and in a manner that would diminish Labour's ability to achieve anything while in Opposition.
[redacted]
-
BenWilson, in reply to
If you're suggesting that Labour should've then welched on the deal and voted against the Bill despite having agreed to vote for it in order to get their compromise, then you're advocating that Labour behave in bad faith and in a manner that would diminish Labour's ability to achieve anything while in Opposition.
Yes, it would probably be bad faith to do that. Not so sure about the diminished power to achieve anything, though. Playing nice with National isn't going to work. But no, I think they should have opposed everything about the bill, and proposed their amendments, and said they were going to vote against it anyway. If, on reflection (for which there was not much time) they found they disagreed with it. It's then on National to adopt the amendments or not, but even more on them for ramming the whole thing through in the first place.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Not so sure about the diminished power to achieve anything, though.
Well, as it stands, Labour are stating that they achieved concessions in both the CERA and file-sharing bills by agreeing to vote for them. In the case of CERA we don’t know what they are, but one assumes that Labour’s CHC MPs considered them worth fighting for. In the case of file-sharing, if the choice is forcing the Executive to defend account termination in the future, or having it in force immediately, I think the former is a minor win.
Those are both achievements, and neither would’ve been possible had Labour previously acted in bad faith towards National over votes on legislation. If you don’t think those are at all worthwhile achievements, so be it, but certainly on file-sharing I (and others in here) disagree with your assessment.
ETA:
It’s then on National to adopt the amendments or not, but even more on them for ramming the whole thing through in the first place.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that National give a flying fuck what anyone thinks about their abuse of urgency. They don’t. They also don’t give a fuck about passing good legislation, or they wouldn’t be abusing urgency. In that situation, I’m very torn as to whether I would rather that Labour voted against an awful law that will pass regardless or voted for a less-awful law that is only less-awful because of their intervention. Saying that they can repeal/alter when they are next in power is only helpful to those who will otherwise be fucked by the new law if Labour keep the period of damage to six months. Which, at present, is not looking terribly likely.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Yes, it would be worse law, but not “due to [Labour] voting against it”; due to National introducing it and garnering enough support to have it passed.
+ 1
I really don't understand what the problem is with calling a spade a spade. I get the feeling Labour isn't telling anyone the whole truth. What are they concealing? In the absence of an explanation of why they voted for it, which would satisfy those who think this law is a horror bound to be repealed, imaginations conjure up all sorts of ideas. I just wish I had seen something that convinced me there wasn't some skulduggery going on.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.