Democracy

I actually /Facepalmed when I saw that.

Here we have a Labour MP that doesn’t believe having a law pass by one vote is Democracy.

Was she asleep at the back of the chamber during Helen Clark’s sweaty grip on her tenuous 1 vote majority reign of terror?

I don’t remember Curran complaining about democracy needing more than 1 vote then, do you?

Even Labour supporter Giovanni gives her a slapping.

I can’t stand beige politics. Let me explain. Our electoral system is such that people cannot be themselves as politicians, they instead are the politicians that polling and focus groups tell them to be. In a word they are beige.

I have been saying this for a long time. Our politicians have become cerebral, thinking issues through, doing what focus groups think is right rather than what is actually right for the country.

It isn’t a secret that I like gut or visceral politicians, and the blood and guts that results from that.

Blogging is funny, when I start thinking about an issue or a idea often along comes a post somewhere else that helps to cement my thinking. This is the case with the issue of beige politics, and coincidentally it is also the term used. Charlie Stross explains.

Firstly the set up:

Here’s a hypothesis: Representative democracy is what’s happening. Unfortunately, democracy is broken. There’s a hidden failure mode, we’ve landed in it, and we probably won’t be able to vote ourselves out of it.

The NZ Herald editorial explores the need for a 4 year term. I have long thought we needed this. Conventional wisdom suggests that 3 years is too short for a good government and too long for a bad one.

Saturday’s referendum on the electoral system did more than just embed MMP, subject to the tinkering recommended by an Electoral Commission review. It also, by implication, enhanced the case for the term of Parliament to be increased from three to four years.

The argument against this has always been that in a country with few constitutional restraints on the power of the Executive, a short term affords the electorate one strong means of restraint.

If proportional representation promised to be an equally effective safeguard, its popularity had yet to be confirmed. Now, with the substantiation of MMP’s broad acceptance, the time is right to reconsider a four-year term.

The thought is not new. In the most recent referendum on the subject, in 1990, 69.3 per cent of those who voted opposed the notion. That rejection must, however, be placed in context. It was held at the tail-end of a two-term Labour Government whose disdain for the public view led eventually to the introduction of MMP.

MMP has held us back, in part because of the need to coalition governments:

Politicians were held in particularly low esteem, and people were in no mood to endorse a device that would make governments even less responsive to the electorate.

Things are different now. John Key has proved a particularly popular Prime Minister, in large part because he has kept such a close eye on public sentiment. His first term, however, provided a graphic illustration of the deficiencies of a three-year Parliament.

Traditionally, these involve a first year spent settling in, the second tackling a stack of legislation, and the third preparing for the coming election.

The work of Mr Key’s Administration was hindered further by the aftermaths of the Christchurch earthquakes and the Pike River disaster. His experience provided a compelling case for a four-year term.

The topic will be examined by the constitutional review panel set up in August at the behest of the Maori Party. But, after gauging public opinion, it is not due to make its recommendations on this and an array of other issues until September 2013.

I’d say we should have a referendum but governments have a poor habit if ignoring referenda.

There will, of course, be those who fear the surrender of any measure of voter sovereignty. But their qualms relate to the behaviour of politicians under the first-past-the-post voting system. All the elections held under MMP have resulted in no party being able to govern outright. Governments have had to consult widely and to accommodate a broad range of views. Helen Clark, who belatedly became an advocate of a four-year fixed term, and Mr Key have both proved adept at managing this and providing stable government.

Four years would provide governments with a far more realistic time frame for implementing policies. In particular, there would be fewer of the short-term policies designed to produce a quick blip in economic performance. And there would be more time for the public to assess whether particular initiatives are working.

The opening of workplace accident insurance to private competition, rushed in by National in 1999 just before it lost power, is just one example of a policy that was overturned before there was a fair analysis of its impact.

There is good reason to believe there would now be a more positive response to a referendum on a four-year term. Most of the previous objections no longer apply. It should be the next plank in the establishment of a more effective government.

From Jim Hopkins:

Unless we vote for change, the politicians will decide how they are elected. They may tinker with MMP or change it radically. The choice will be theirs, not ours. A vote for change will ensure a second referendum, with MMP tested against one of the alternatives. It means we will control the evolution of our peaceful democracy. Let the politicians address the economy. But the elections belong to us!

This election is relatively easy.

I live in Pakuranga. A vote for any other candidate other than Maurice Williamson is a waste of time. I have known Maurice since I was a kid when I used to go down to his apartment at the end of my street and play heavy metal music very loud until the neighbours pounded on the doors. He tried in vain to teach me maths in the 5th form.

As for my party vote: I will be voting for National. The last thing this country needs is inept fools like Phil Goff and trevor mallard back on the treasury benches. The last time Labour was the answer to anything was 1984 and 1987. Only a party vote for National ensures a John Key led government. If for no other reason than John Key sends the leftwing into apoplexy, party vote for National

Voting is important, it is the one chance every three years where everyone gets to have a say.

Don’t forget the referendum too.

I will be voting for change in the referendum, I hate MMP. I hate every three years having stupid “cup of tea” charades for media wankers to get their jollies. I hate that Winston Peters the most corrupting influence in New Zealand politics continues to enthrall the bewildered, the deluded and the media all because of MMP.

I encourage everyone to give MMP the boot and to vote for SM. The reason I say SM is that I don’t believe that any of the other systems could beat MMP in the next referendum. SM fixes the vast majority of the hated parts of MMP. Failed electorate candidates cannot sneak back in on the list and the tail is docked and wags a whole lot less.

Back in April this year Phil Goff said the referendum was for people to decide not politicians:

Labour Leader Phil Goff wants to see an end to coat-tailing under the MMP system.

He says this year’s referendum on MMP is for the public to decide, not politicians.

I noted that Labour were going to expend a great deal of energy on retaining a system they believe is in their best interests. Yesterday I blogged about the union foot soldiers in the Campaign for MMP were helping deliver Labour pamphlets.

Today more evidence of the collusion between the two campaigns. These pamphlets are being handed out in Manurewa. The Labour pamphlet and tucked inside the pamphlet for Campaign for MMP:

Not only that Labour is also handing out campaign buttons:

Despite Phil Goff saying that the referendum was for the public to decide and not the politicians, Labour is going all in on MMP.

National has studiously ignored the referendum, they can ignore it no longer as 9 unions and 2 political parties that oppose them in every other way also heavily promote a system that will eventually squeeze out National as its coalition partners die off.

John Key is going to have to make a “Cameron speech” if National is to have any chance long-term against a group of people who represent just 7% of the workforce. The unions, Labour and the Greens are National’s political enemies, why would National want to retain a system of government that they prefer?

If the unions, Winston Peters, the Greens and Labour think something is a good idea then you would be wise to do the opposite of what they think. Vote for Change in the referendum.

Tariana Turia has announced she will retire.

Having solved the Sea Bed and Foreshore issue her party no longer has a reason to exist, and it is hard to image them finding someone with the mana required to take over in her seat.

I have long held that the Maori Party is doomed, and that National is rapidly running out of coalition partners. National may win a majority this time, but has only won a majority once since 1951. With no coalition partners and Labour and the Greens likely to work together National will become the Natural Party of Opposition.

Why hasn’t National gone all out to protect its future by telling the New Zealand public to vote for change in this referendum?

The left wing has been dancing up a storm about the alleged “freedom” that has descended upon Egypt. They didn’t sing quite the same song when the same sort of freedom came to Fiji.

But have they thought about what exactly the new freedom of Egypt will look like. I doubt it, certainly their explanations will have been coloured by the rose tinted glasses they all seem to wear.

Fortunately there are some people who are more steeped in reality.

I guess the reason people still speak of democracy is because they think it is important that everyone have their “say”, that everyone’s opinion is just as important and worthy of attention as everyone else’s. Said Obama in one of his recent speeches, “Above all, this transition must bring all of Egypt’s voices to the table.” Well, let’s see what we are likely to wind up with if this approach is applied.

In this editorial, you can read a condensed summary of the results of a Pew Research Center poll, conducted of Egyptians last year. Some highlights (or, should I say, lowlights):

• 95% prefer the religion play a “large role in politics.”

• 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.

• 82% support stoning adulterers.

• 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.

• 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.

• Nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas.

• 82% of Egyptians dislike the U.S.

Do these data points make you think that Egyptians want anything that even remotely resembles “freedom”? No, me neither. What would the poll data look like if the sample population was limited to the “extremists”?

Most of the support the mob has had from the likes of Bomber and other pinkos is simply because they hate Israel and hate the US. Their opinions certainly aren’t based on historical analysis of Egypt, and definitely not on rational thought. The same folk who cry “freedom” for the people of Egypt also remain silent on almost any military dictatorship that New Zealand trades with, like Burma, like Vietnam, like China.

But you have to ask, if “freedom” in Egypt at the point of a gun in the form of military control is ok, then why not in Fiji? Will New Zealand now place travel restrictions on the coup leaders? I bet not, because we actually don’t care what goes on in Egypt, but we most certainly want to care, to the point of meddling in Fiji.

At the time of John Boscawen’s EFB protest marches, John Key, as Leader of the Opposition at the time, did not attend a march, however he did send John a message to be read out to the protesters. In that message he said, with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill;

Labour is not listening. National is.
Today, I give you this assurance. If I have the privilege to be the next Prime Minister I will overturn this law. I will set about building a proper political consensus for fair changes to our election rules. I will listen to what people like you, and many thousands of others are saying.
You are fighting for a principle.
You are fighting for THE most important principle.
You are fighting for democracy.
I salute you
John Key

I was there when John Boscawen read out that message, and more importantly, I put it on Youtube.

Well John? What happened to your principles? Did you drop them along the way as you were fighting for democracy?

Why has John Key allowed Simon Power to sell out National and the thousands who marched for our freedom of speech and democracy?

Sure National repealed the law but they have effectively re-instated it. they have protected the hegemony of politician to pretend to speak for us and spend our money telling us what they think, yet prevent us telling them how we think.

What is even more ridiculous is the spending limits they have decided upon for standing for parliament. In the recent local body elections people were able to spend up to $40,000 to secure a ward councillor position. Yet Simon Power and his Labour party pals think that $25,000 should be the limit for an individual to spend trying to secure an electorate seat. Why the difference…are council seats more important that seats for members of parliament.

Yet another example of the paucity of Simon Power‘s intellectual abilities.

John Key - Enemy of Freedom of Speech

Warning: Vanity Post, plus egregious pinko smears

Oscar Wilde said;

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”

And on that note enjoy;

Radio NZ’s mediawatch this morning on the impact of bloggers on the mainstream NZ media. At least they get the facts right about the Jim Anderton earthquake quote.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Denis Welch perpetrating the pinko’s lie about the source of the Jim Anderton quote. His comments are so factually incorrect as to warrant a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Still he says “Cameron Slater” numerous times so it isn’t all bad.

The Nation’s Super City Debate – Questions on Democracy – A a regular on The Nation I got to ask about Maori representation at 8’10″ in the clip. The pinkos in the audience weren’t at all happy.

Len Brown’s spin weasel, Conor Roberts, said afterwards that he thought the question was a good one and worth asking. Still that’s the opinion of a paid lickspittle so probably isn’t worth a hell of a lot.