But the Cons are only a extreme party you don't like. You shouldn't be permitted to choose a democracy you like.
It's the result based on the lists filed with the EC of course. I suspect if there wasn't a threshold more parties would be formed, and therefore more parties represented in parliament.
Politics is also the art of the possible.
An interesting piece, Russell.
You're right: The centre right in Auckland is fractured. My personal view is that Auckland actually does need party politics. By this I mean Labour stands in its own name, and National should do the same. The reason it doesn't is because National cannot control it, and is therefore scared of its brand being tarnished. So it silently sits in behind the scenes trying to play puppet master.
There's nothing antithetical about a centre right elected member working with the centre left, or the left in general. At least not at local board level. You can't argue over parks maintenance, or library upgrades, on philosophical bases. That stuff belongs in academic writings, not at the coalface. There are some issues where an ideological view can proceed over pragmatism, but not many. Mostly, you need to get on at local board level at least, to get things done. These are the reasons I believe I was voted in as deputy chairman of the Kaipatiki Local Board in 2013, even though those voting for me were from Labour, and I was from Act (and they all knew it). If you're into achievement politics (as I was) then that's the only way to play it. A case in point was the Unitary Plan process. Philosophically, I prefer expanding the RUB rather than intensification. But it was crystal clear that the debate around expanding the RUB was not being won, and at local board level you have little input around that. So it became a matter for me on focusing on what you could achieve, rather than sitting back and throwing rocks. Auckland desperately needs housing and so getting the Unitary Plan through was imperative so I argued that we should still expand the RUB, but at the same time supported the Unitary Plan - because I'm into achievement politics.
On the other hand, I think the Council is a different beast. There is a more room for class warfare (as it were) if you want to play it that way. But council is not dissimilar to MMP, which is what Penny Hulse understands, and I think some centre right councillors supporting the Mayor do also. Basically, you have to pick your fights - again, not dissimilar to national politics. The best centre right councillors should know this, but it's not clear on the evidence.
No, no, yes, no and no.
That was what I thought.
Me too. I don't believe it.
Well I guess to the suspicious I guess the answer would be because ACT could then introduce three strikes to basic, simple offences (drunks scaling a fence etc).
I'd like to think I'm right in saying three-strikes for burglary was not even in contemplation back then.
And hopefully I am right.
But none of those those scenarios (independently or together) were done on three separate occasions, by the same offender, who on each occasion was convicted of the offence, were they? So they actually have nothing in common with ACT"s policy, because they are one-off offences.
But if they had been done on three occasions by the same offender, who on each occasion had been convicted, then yes, they would have something in common with the policy.
I wouldn’t campaign for it exactly, but a three year prison term is pretty standard for a repeat burglar of the type ACT is campaigning over, and may even by a little on the low side.
My experience from being in the police is that if you went to jail on your third domestic burglary offence you either faced an unduly harsh judge, or there were aggravating factors that warranted it. My experience says you had to wait until about your fifth burglary before facing just a few months in prison.
A poignant tribute, Russell. Nice words, at the appropriate time.
What Matthew said in relation to a debate that is long overdue.