Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Paul:
what I was really getting at was that Standing Orders as a safeguard (to an already entrenched law or to stop entrenchment without the required number of votes) seems to be relatively easy to get around (and makes the whole idea kind of moot)
It's relatively easy to get around anyway; s268 Electoral Act (the entrenchment clause) is not itself entrenched, and can be repealed with a simple majority. So, want to change anything, repeal s268, change things, then put it back if you feel like it (its done this way AIUI because there are questions whether entrenchment can really be done in a Westminster system anyway, since no parliament can bind its successor. To which I say "Parliament might not be able to, but the people can, literally if need be" (it being so much easier to throw MPs into a local sewage pond when they're tied up).
Graeme:
Close, though. The form of the ballot paper (i.e. a party vote and electorate vote) is entrenched.
You might want to read s168 a little more closely; it doesn't prescribe the form of the ballot paper at all. Rather, it says "if you've got two boxes, you tick two boxes; otherwise you tick only one as appropriate". There's no protection for MMP in that at all.
-
No. It means nobody gave McCain the briefing book containing the factoid that denial is a river in d'Egypt. Breath deep and repeat after me, Steve: Cock up trumps conspiracy, moron trumps malice.
And Diebold trumps them all, if it wants to. But we'll just have to wait and see on that.
-
Paul C:
4 Suspension of Standing Orders
(1) A Standing Order or other order of the House may be suspended
in whole or in part on motion with or without notice.
(2) A suspension motion may be moved without notice only if at least
60 members are present when the motion is moved.
(3) A suspension motion may not interrupt a debate and must state the
object of or reason for the proposed suspension.
(4) An amendment may not be moved to a suspension motion.Doing this, however, would be dodgy, and arguably unconstitutional (in the Aristotelian sense).
-
It does pose a serious problem for the Maori Party's bottom line of entrenching the Maori seats. And it would be nice if a journalist asked them how they expect to get around it if National refuses to play ball. They could move to suspend under SO 4, but that's getting very dodgy (akin to circumventing the curent entrenchment by temporarily repealing it).
Paul: entrenchment is rarely used in NZ, and arguably underused. MMP isn't entrenched, for example. Neither is the principle of responsible government (Ministers must be MPs), or even the existence of Parliament itself. On the one hand, this is perhaps a symbol of the uncontentious nature of democracy in NZ - we simply don't need to entrench. But on the other, it would be nice to have a few safeguards, and these aren't things I think we need that level of flexibility for.
-
BTW, if entrenching the Maori seats really is an absolute, unmovable bottom line for the Maori Party, it looks like they've relegated themselves to the cross-benches:
Which may not be such a bad thing for them. A Maori Party veto on policy, anyone?
-
I dunno. There is a rate of mental illness in society (whatever it is) that perhaps we need to account for and whilst I think that representing the needs of those citizen's is important, it can kinda mess up the rest of the system if the threshold is too low.
To point out something which should be obvious to anyone, none of the parties which would be in parliament under a lower threshold (the Alliance, Destiny, Libertarianz and maybe ALCP) could be considered to be "mentally ill". Obnoxious, irritating, dogmatic, or just different, sure. But none of them could be called "insane" in any sense other than the rhetorical.
-
I don't sell them, so all you can get a cut of are the expenses. So yes please!
Send me a picture; maybe I could buy one.
Oh, but it's been done. Do we even still bother? I guess we ought to, seen as they keep at it...
I remember that march; it was fun (thanks for organising it, BTW)
-
Is the National Front, that can't compete at the city council level and wouldn't muster an MP regardless of the threshold?
Speaking of which, they're having their "flag day" in Wellington tomorrow. Feel free to go along and tell them what you think of them and their hateful version of patriotism.
-
You're making T-shirts out of my comments?
Hey, do I get a cut?
-
Tom:
The Netherlands is a very prosperous and racially homogenous nation. What makes you think New Zealand's political culture would resemble the Netherlands and not that of Israel?
Because that's very much how its turning out? Look at the way our Parliament has operated over the past nine years - we've managed stable minority government, drawing support from a variety of sources. We have widespread cross-party consultation and a high degree of consensus on legislation (National and ACT are frequently the only parties not voting for a bill - the latter because they fundamentally disagree with it, the former because they still have an outdated FPP mindless opposition attitude). Coalitions are loose, and negotiations tend not to feature the "bottom lines" we saw in 1996; instead there's an understanding that there has to be a government, and so you need to find areas you can agree on, not bash heads with absolutist bullshit which does no-one any good.
But like the man said, reality has a liberal bias :)
Doing away with the threshold would see a few smaller parties in parliament (1 in 2005; 3 or 4 in 2002). the fragmentation would make it easier to govern, not harder; a government would have more options to shop around and gain a majority on legislation. And it would be far better for our democracy.
Finally, democracy isn't about "good governance" - it's about our governance. It should not be constrained simply in order to limit policy discussion to options you are comfortable with.