Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I’d totally disagree with you there
Oh, bum. I’d totally disagree with that, because I agree with Russell’s original sentiment.
But the beltway frenzy is outrunning the number of things to actually report, and resulting in Patrick Gower’s ridiculous series of tweets about Chris Hipkins this morning.
Exactly -- there's about as much news value here as various commentators drawing up fantasy Cabinets a week before the return of the writ.
-
Hard News: A message from The Fabians, in reply to Russell Brown,
So even though I’m currently of the view that the obsessing about the predicament of the Labour Party is greatly outrunning the supply of actual news about same
I’d totally disagree with you there, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth thinking about. Not least because, in my view, everyone should want to see a healthy opposition acting as a check and balance to the government of whatever day. I may be a Tory, but it serves my interests as a citizen much better if Labour isn't stuck playing out some political version of the Oresteia.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to andin,
Umm don’t think Treasury is a very science based dept. Could be wrong tho’. All those numbers… looks kind of sciencey.
I really hope the departmental Chief Executives probably drafting BIMs as we speak aren’t just random weirdos picked up off the street. They can contain all the free and frank advice, impeccably reasoned and entirely worthy, in the world from people who have a sound grasp of their departments and relevant public policy issues but their Ministers are under precisely no obligation to follow any of it.
But that’s a digression, because I was just agreeing with Bart that Humph Applebey’s sneer at Peter Gluckman was unfair. He’s an adviser, and sneering at him as some kind of National Party hack because he’s not doing a three-point flounce out of the room not only misunderstands what his job actually is, but isn’t particularly useful either.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
While like any person Professor Sir Peter Gluckman may have faults this is an extremely unfair characterisation of him.
He is a very good scientist in his own field and as science adviser he has tried to advise without burning the delicate bridge between the adviser position and the office of the PM.
Agreed – and to throw a reality check into the mix here, no matter what stripe the government is an “adviser” is precisely that. Free and frank expert advice is a wonderful thing, but there’s plenty of papers in the National Archives that prove you can’t make your political lords and mistresses take a blind bit of notice if they just don’t want to. (c.f. Michael Cullen’s dismissal of Treasury’s 2005 briefing to the incoming Government as the usual triennial “ideological burp.” Which, on one level is fair enough. Cullen's job was to advance a fiscal and tax agenda Labour had an electoral mandate for, not rubber stamp Treasury briefing papers.)
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to izogi,
Exactly! And since I've been a financial member of a political party for almost twenty-five years, I'll put my hand up and say Team Me is part of the problem. The data don't lie, and it's a simple matter of fact that nearly a quarter of registered voters didn't vote on Saturday. (And don't even get me started on the even worse turn out for local body elections -- because I've never seen anyone complain their rates are too low.) Don't want to give anyone the impression I think that not a problem, but I'm not convinced compulsory voting would address the deeper issues here.
That said, I'd like to thank everyone (including OPer Alex Mackenzie) for putting cogent and thoughtful arguments up in favor. You haven't changed my mind (yet), but you've made me look at the question not only deeper but from angles I'd never thought of before. That's a very good thing indeed.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to David Haywood,
I’m now convinced that we need to (properly) implement compulsory voting to counteract the vote-discouraging strategies that are already being used in NZ.
With all due and sincere respect to both you and Moz, aren’t you elevating form over substance? If the main “vote-discouraging strategy” is well… politicians and policies people feel don’t represent their interests in a meaningful way (*), I don’t think a 100% turnout with 23% of the ballots spoiled or otherwise invalid (or 23% of the electorate being criminalized) is any more laudable than what happened on Saturday.
{*} And my caveat there is I don’t actually know. Nobody really does, and perhaps we need to make more of an effort to find out before going for the nuclear option.
“Properly” meaning with the caveat that Steven Crawford (and others) have mentioned: an I don’t want to vote option and a none of the above option.
We already have both of the above, and 23% of registered voters exercised it on Saturday by not voting. As I said up thread, perhaps we should be engaging people instead of functionally making them criminals for being disengaged from politics and the political process. Or patronizing them as mindless puppets of some vast right-wing conspiracy.
And I’d also like someone to rebut the point Robyn made near the top of the thread. What’s the stick here that won’t disproportionately affect the poor and the young who, at least anecdotally, make up a very large chunk of that missing million we hear so much about? Checking some privilege here might be a useful exercise.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to BenWilson,
Well an obvious idea is that disaffection could be an option on the ballot. “No confidence” or something like it. It wouldn’t change them being disaffected, but we would at least know that being disaffected is why they voted that way.
Well,if I just draw a cock on my ballot paper rather than not turning up because I can't afford to pay the fine or would rather not end up with a court date what exactly have we learned?
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Moz,
I’m keen on compulsory voting exactly because it negates one strategy of the powerful – discouraging voting
Really, Moz? It also negates groups like the No Land! No House! No Vote! Campaign in South Africa. Whether you agree with them or not, most of the people involved in this campaign sincerely feel that voting lends spurious legitimacy to successive governments that have consistently failed to address the needs of the poor.
The main issue I have with compulsory voting is that it privileges form (high turnout) over substance (motivating people to participate in politics and the political process). And as Robyn pointed out a fine (and a conviction) may mean fuck all to relatively privileged folks like your average PAS reader, but $20 might actually be a really big deal to the poor and young who should be engaged rather than coerced.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Gah I can’t find it now but someone has done the analysis and that is exactly the case. National has maintained about a million voters for ever.
That would be a fascinating piece of analysis, because "forever" is... well, since 2008. Then again, if a week is a long time in politics six years is an eon. :)
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Sacha,
Danyl suggests an enforceable ongoing audit of OIA responsiveness as one answer to Dirty Politics.
Not a bad idea -- though I'd like to see it applied all the way across the board. The Official Information and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Acts aren't suggested guidelines (if you can be bothered getting around to it) but legislation, and a little regular naming and shaming for public bodies that don't obey the law wouldn't be a bad thing.