Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
People I know who've been affected by serious crime are sometimes more or less ignored
Yup, I've no idea when or how we'll get back the $250 than Allan Hubbard and his mates stole from me and every other NZ taxpayer.
-
People have an unreasonable expectation of absolute security.
In the case mentioned above, the trial judge sentenced Wilson to a very long time in prison - he's now coming to the end of that sentence. So we can't guarantee he won't reoffend? That's a problem, but so is retrospective punishment.
The state (and by extension in a voteocracy, the voters) are not morally culpable for what individuals do (even if the justice system has 'failed' to prevent their crimes). They *are* culpable for what the state does.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #3: The Submission, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I think she (and the other Green electorate candidates) would like to be electorate MPs, but would prefer that if they don't get elected, Labour rather than National take the seat.
It's a bit of a FPP hangover though. It shouldn't actually matter if National win electorates - if the Labour party vote holds up, they'll get list MPs.
-
Field Theory: Fight Club, in reply to Just thinking,
No Riots ever happened to Disco.
You clearly (and fortunately) didn't grow up in provincial England in the late 70's / early 80's.
Most towns featured (and probably still do) one or two 'nightclubs' where young men would glower at each other and perv at young women to a soundtrack of commercial disco, complete with 'erection section' as 2am loomed. Regularly this would break out into fights.
Above (not taken by me) the ruin of one local example - it was destroyed after a series of tragic events: the landlord died of a heart attack after breaking up a fight, the pub closed and rapidly fell into dereliction.
The Ricky Gervais film Cemetery Junction is an accurate depiction of these times.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Ian Farquharson,
Most of my (over 50) friends think that most politicians are self serving scum who want to control far to many aspects of our lives and get paid too much. and that 120 of them is far too many and that should be halved
[ I think you mean 'too many', not 'to many'. Also, you should possibly work on your use of commas ]
But in any case, has it occurred to your aging friends that those politicians are only there because they (and others) voted for them? If they don't like the politicians they are getting, they could try voting for different candidates and parties. When you put an X for National, the people on National's list get elected.
It can't be that hard to understand, even for the senile. Maybe it is, and we should consider an upper voting age or qualified suffrage based on reasoning ability.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #2: Dual Candidacy, in reply to Ben Austin,
Personally, I think I'd rather have people I can vote against making legislative decisions (and review *is* legislative power - if a future government wants to tax the rich, I'm sure an upper house full of well paid notables would be keen to 'review' that away).
-
Perhaps we allow for Ministers to be appointed from outside of Parliament
Not very successfully in the UK. At best they struggled with the very different environment of being a politician (without having gone through an apprenticeship of being a candidate and backbencher). At worst they were utterly corrupt criminals, who didn't even bother becoming tax resident in the nation they governed.
-
It strikes me that the "texture" (for want of a better word) of suburbs and districts isn't something that's in the gift of local council planners. That's probably a good thing.
Cuba St is the way it is because all the mainstream shopping migrated to the Lambton Quay area, and the resulting harder-to-let property attracted interesting shops and businesses. No council ever decided it was time to create an "artistic quarter".
-
I disagree for a range of reasons:
1. It is a good democratic principle that anyone should be able to stand in an election, and that it is for the voters to choose the winner. Restricting who can stand as a candidate detracts from this.
2. Both list and electorate MPs are equally validly elected. It is often argued that unpopular electorate MPs who lose their seats “sneak in” through the list. This is not a reasonable argument – list MPs are in Parliament because a group of people voted for them, just as electorate MPs are. If you object to the members of a parties list, then don't vote for that party.
3. The removal of dual candidacy would have the effect of encouraging strong candidates to shun marginal electorate contests in favour of the list. In Wellington Central, we have often had high profile electorate MPs - this wouldn't happen with the change you suggest - we'd have a succession of newbies who would, if successful, move on after their first term.
4. MMP enables voters to select the electorate candidate they want without affecting the party outcome (especially if coattailing is abolished), enabling them to vote sincerely rather than tactically. If parties withdraw from the electorate contest in some areas, this will be lost.
5. I don't think we have any legal requirements in NZ (as in places overseas) to invite all candidates to forums. There is a convention, however, that this is done. If the process becomes fragmented, it's likely that big party electorate candidates will dominate the debate.
-
we want a diverse parliament rather than the expected 3-party model a lot of people were expecting
I'd argue that only the Greens have made an unequivocal go of MMP.
The Alliance and Progressives are gone. United Future and ACT are now just single electorate MPs. NZF won't survive Winstons anticipated death or retirement.
The Maori Party has always been an electorate thing, and is also on its way out.
Mana might grow, if they can consolidate Hone's position and gain grassroots support with the confidence that votes won't be wasted. But they probably won't, at least not before the Great Economic Collapse.
[ This isn't that the voters wouldn't embrace more parties, but that the parties that emerged were based around one slightly unhinged person's worldview. Or a few very unhinged peoples wordview, in the case of ACT].
