Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Re yesterday's media, does anyone know much about what's in the works for the NZ First legislation to prevent MPs jumping parties?
It hit media yesterday with news that the Greens are considering supporting it in exchange for legislating Parihaka Day. NZ Herald; Stuff.
I'm very concerned about this and surprised the Greens are considering supporting it. Not so much because I have a well developed opinion on whether MPs should stick with their parties as because since 1996, the only new parties we've ever seen enter parliament under MMP have been ones that started with a defecting MP. Even the Green Party itself had Jeanette Fitzsimons and others in parliament for the Alliance when it entered parliament independently in '99, and arguably it still needed Helen Clark's support for Labour voters in Coromandel to support it.
Under the current MMP system, if MPs can't defect from parties then it's effectively a death sentence for the future of having any small parties at all, because when the existing ones die off it's impossible for new small parties to replace them.
Not to criticise the merit of having Parihaka Day, but if the Green Party were going to demand something in exchange for supporting MPs defecting, why not demand something to properly compensate for its effects, like serious reconsideration of and implementation of the 2012 MMP Review results? At least make it more realistic for new parties, with interesting and inspiring ideas, to get independently elected without requiring so much help from incumbent MPs and Parties.
-
I'm unclear on how official it is or if it's already common knowledge, but on Nine to Noon this morning, Gavin Ellis seemed to have information from somewhere suggesting that Ben Mack won't be writing for the NZ Herald again. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018621572/media-commentator-gavin-ellis About 11m45s in.
-
Also from the weird mind of Ben Mack, courtesy of the NZ Herald: 18 reasons why New Zealand is like North Korea.
-
Speaker: The Government lost the election, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Tim Watkin has a response in the Washington Post.
-
Just on Simon Bridges, what's with all the sudden media referring to him as Shadow Leader of the House, and other National MPs as shadow Ministers? Eg https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98721388/question-time-confusion-chaos-and-comedy-as-mps-faceoff-for-first-time
I know it's common in Australia, but I don't recall the terminology ever being repeatedly used here by media until National is suddenly in opposition. I bet National loves it, too, because of the impression it creates of who's running stuff.
-
Probably old news for those following things today, but news just now is that Select Committee positions have now been raised from 96 to 108... seemingly because Labour didn't have enough MPs present to elect Trevor Mallard as Speaker.
RNZ: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/343269/house-trading-mps-strike-hasty-deal
Stuff: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98638163/government-forced-to-do-a-deal-with-national-after-failing-to-have-the-numbers-in-the-house -
Hard News: All Change, in reply to Tom Semmens,
National was unable to build a “rule alone” majority despite...
After the 2014 election National had 60/121 seats. It had an effective majority after including its two finger puppet parties (ACT and UF), which it had retained on life support for that very reason.
That state was weakened with the Northland by-election, but I can appreciate why some of National's elite would continue to be convinced that going for a complete majority remains a viable strategy.
It's annoying, because parties are just dying out without replacement. That's only been less obvious until now because of National's strategic games in keeping its friends alive on a leash, despite nobody voting for them. In 2017 there were very few realistic options for government, short of everyone having to deal with a party that nobody wanted to deal with. Meanwhile people have demonstrably been wanting to elect other new parties which, despite being far more inspiring to voters than the ACT and UF zombies, cannot break an impossible threshold. If National had let go of its obsession with being such a dominating party that hides contradictory interests behind a brick wall, instead of letting those voters have some influence in which of those interests should be better represented, it might have been more open to letting MMP be adjusted to a form that makes it vaguely possible for new parties to actually get started.
-
Hard News: All Change, in reply to ,
Let’s hope the ministers get together form good relationships, and have quite walks on the beach. Or drinks at the Koru club at least.
I hope so. The Conservation portfolio's not the only thing I care about, but I care about it a lot. I have some respect for Eugenie Sage in that space, but right now being shunted outside of Cabinet, for what seems like political reasons, is the last thing that portfolio needs.
Hopefully they have enough structure there to ensure that the Minister can get some genuine attention from Cabinet, beyond it simply throwing some extra cash from a tourism levy (as per Labour policy) and expecting the whole thing to run on cruise control.
-
Hard News: All Change, in reply to Russell Brown,
Good stuff.
I’m in mixed minds about this. As much as I like the idea of finally seeing some Ministerial responsibilities going to the Greens, I’m wary of seeing a portfolio like Conservation shift outside Cabinet. That’s effectively the management of 1/3 of the entire land-area of New Zealand, plus it’s currently undergoing substantial stress and in need of transformation due to pest and tourism impacts.
-
Legal Beagle: Election 2017: the Special…, in reply to Dennis Frank,
I wonder if Winston will announce it alone, or jointly with the leader of the majority party in it?
I struggle to imagine him announcing it jointly. Everyone would know, and broadcast, what he'd decided before he had a chance to say it himself. Unless he were planning to really screw with everyone.
The bluegreen cabinet minister ought to issue this press release: [blah blah]
Whatever can be argued for parties using strategies like withdrawing candidates, it both hinders the ability of the party to campaign in that electorate, and risks annoying voters by removing choice, which is never a good thing in my view. I voted for the candidate who I thought would best represent my electorate. That candidate was neither of the two front-runners, which I'm fine with because in my view both front-runners were inappropriate for being my local representative. One of those two (who believed they were entitled to all the "left" votes.. or more accurately all the votes that weren't for the National candidate) tried to convince two different candidates, who they believed were splitting that vote, to stand down. They didn't get their way, and I'd have been really annoyed if they did.
Split voting in electorates simply reinforces to me why we'd be much better off having a preferential system for electorate voting, because it does away with vote splitting and gives voters a better opportunity to get a local candidate who they more closely agree on. That's a good thing for voters, unless your a [most likely but not always a National] voter who tends to see your candidate coast through the middle under FPP, despite the majority preferring someone else if there were a genuine runoff as preferential voting would simulate.
As I'm sure you're aware, though, even split voting only affects the overall outcome under MMP if it's a strategic electorate. That's also why, in the wider scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if Nick Smith wins Nelson or not --- except for the people of Nelson for whom the system denied them the opportunity to choose between two local candidates they'd probably have preferred either of. He was 15th on National's list and was never not going to be in parliament. If the Greens hadn't reached 5% then it might have been significant, but the Greens did reach 5% and regardless of the non-stop media speculation I suspect they were always confident that their base would get them to at least the threshold.
Why criticise the voters of Nelson, or the Labour or the Green parties, for failing to irritate voters by withdrawing candidates who'd show up to meetings and campaign for their respective party votes, and perhaps whom those voters might really want to vote for?