Login/Join to access your personalised dashboard now! Returning user? Log in or Register
Log in to your GrownUps

Politics Today

This topic contains 6673 replies, has 60 voices, and was last updated by  gabyone > 7 days ago.

Discussions Politics Today Politics Today

Viewing 10 posts - 5,921 through 5,930 (of 6,674 total)
  • #1717050
    halcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 8
    Replies: 4946
    halcyon

    Do not be too disheartened. Ardern did say that there would be no CGT on her watch. However, I doubt her watch will be three terms.

    My prediction is that she will  win the 2020 election. Then early 2021 she will be offered a job at the UN. The next leader of Labour will be well placed to implement the CGT due to the current  backlash amongst the Labour supporters.

    Given the current polling it is possible that Labour will be able to form a government with the Greens as a partner. That will remove the Winston effect.

    It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.

    #1717054
    don021
    Member
    Member since: May 15, 2012
    Topics: 0
    Replies: 1775
    don021

    So Winston has derailed the introduction of an oveerdue Capital Gains Tax, this from a man who was not elected to Parliement but pushed in on a list barrow. It is time the Prop. Rep. rules were tightened up.

    #1717065
    arandar
    Member
    Member since: November 23, 2009
    Topics: 31
    Replies: 10751
    arandar

    Don, it’s been 25 or more years since NZ voted for MMP to replace FPP.

    We voted this way because successive govts rammed through legislation without consultation and, in the opinion of the majority at the time, without a real mandate.  We voted to ensure everyone’s vote counted and consensus is necessary to form a majority.  No consensus, no legislation.

    You may not like it, that’s your choice, but there’s no excuse after all this time, to not understand MMP.

    I’m not a Peters’ fan.  I only ever voted for NZ1st once and regretted it bitterly. However, enough people are, and did, to ensure Peters and NZ1st were returned to Parliament.

    You and I may not like it but I, at least, know they and other minor parties, are entitled to be there, having gained 5% of the vote or more, or a coat-tail to cling to in the case of ACT, to make the decisions their voters require of them.

    I spent Wednesday evening in the company of a roomful of mostly National voting, small business owners and rental property investors. They were delirious and singing Peters’ praises to the rafters.

    I was very, very quiet and drank rather too much red wine.

     

    Arandar

    #1717090
    don021
    Member
    Member since: May 15, 2012
    Topics: 0
    Replies: 1775
    don021

    This is a democracy arandar and I accept the will of the majority, I fully understand the workings of MMP but I believe it can be modified even at this stage. After all the system was modified after many years of FPTP. My thougthts are that we should end the party system and elect a government like a committee. Many organisations in N.Z. are run very successfully by committees, why not run the country the same way? It would avoid the sometimes bitter debates in the House.

    #1717100
    arandar
    Member
    Member since: November 23, 2009
    Topics: 31
    Replies: 10751
    arandar

    That’s a really interesting thought, Don. I believe our electoral system needs considerable reform and improvement.

    There’s no doubt in my mind, MMP could and should be modified; the review back in ?2015? or whenever, determined it should be.

    I support all the review’s recommendations, including that the threshold be lowered to 4%.

    I support doing away with coat tailing.

    Further, I support doing away with donations from any entity not a registered voter; ie business, unions, lobby groups and foreign actors of any persuasion.

    As to ‘Government by Committee’; to an extent, that is what we have. Our Select Committees are cross-Party, some are Chaired by Opposition politicians, and they are the backbone of our democratic process.

    But, to do away with parties and Party Politics would be impossible and probably counter-productive, I reckon. At least we know, when a politician speaks, who they are speaking for …

    If they were independent and individuals, do you really think they’d remain so or would they find, as quickly as possible, like minds and kindred spirits and form themselves into groups in order to put more weight behind their particular barrows?

    Every committee I’ve ever been part of has done that – birds of a feather… etc.

    It’s a nice idea but humans being what we are; tribal or social call it what we will, I don’t think we would sustain our independence and individuality for six months let alone three or more years.

    The only true independents/individuals I’ve ever known on committees are always the stirrers, the single issue people, the ones who cannot and will not play nicely for the team, who rarely if ever contribute and who usually achieve little or nothing.

    Arandar

    #1717118
    paulinem
    Member
    Member since: July 8, 2006
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 984
    paulinem

    At the time we voted for MMP. I was a member of social credit …it was because of  the undemocratic way FPTP  left this party out  of parliament due to the unfair election system of FPP.  Is the reason SC pushed and pushed for a proportional election system, A case in point one election SC received from memory two seats elected  via the FPP election system  which only recognized electoral seats.  IN this election they SC received 20% of the overall  NZ election vote for social credit candidates in this election . BUT because of the FPP only recognizing electoral seats only, the 20 % support by voters for SC went totally unrecognized in the final vote.

    The gross unfairness of this started SC push to change the system, there were two choices they had to change to. MMP or Single Transfer Vote or STV. We Social Creidt saw that the later STV was by far the most democratic system, BUT because the opponents of change from FPP supporters ( mostly National Party members – this was because National had retained power for years and years due to the gross unfairness of the FPP recognizing  the electoral winners only to gain  MPs  in Parliament)  The opponents of election voting change  ridiculed STV  for its  democraticly fairness as this system frighten them. Now becasue SC was desperate to get change it was decided to support MMP as yes it had loopholes re commentators above have suggested.

    BUT  Social Credit saw that MMP  was still more democratically fairer  than the FPP. , and that maybe in future we could get a  vote on STV  which was better  democratic election system.  The FPP   lobbiest were pushing very hard to retain this election system, and  MMP was gaining support by the other non SC electoral voter, where as the propaganda mischief been played on STV was putting the support for any proportional voting change at risk. Thus Social Credit decided to support MMP to ensure we did get change in the election system

    #1717120
    mommabear70
    Member
    Member since: February 20, 2017
    Topics: 1
    Replies: 1961
    mommabear70

    MMP adjustment required: a party must win at least one electoral seat to have members in Parliament.

     

    #1717121
    paulinem
    Member
    Member since: July 8, 2006
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 984
    paulinem

    Sorry MB I would abolish the coat tail selection in the voting system. Re Act getting seats but only getting about 2% of the vote. Where as the Conservatives received was it 4.5% of the vote and got no seats in Parliament.

    No STV is the answer for those that want change, this system is used in many western democracy’s for elections. Democracies that seem to work normally without major crisises. Under STV election system our seats in Parliament would be all electoral seats BUT the difference with FPP is that the winner of the seat, has to get over  50% preference votes of their electoral support to win.

    Where as under FPP many  winners of the electoral vote won the seat with some times less than 40% of support and the rest of votes in the election of that  electorate ie the other 60% of the vote was wasted meaning nothing in the final count.

    Many many elections   under FPP  system there was alot  more votes against National ( whom usually won the FPP election ) than for them. But all these other votes were considered a waste of vote as they didnt count in the final voting and thus FPP  put people of even voting. Marginal seats were WELL LOOKED after by the winning party under FPP!!

    #1717122
    arandar
    Member
    Member since: November 23, 2009
    Topics: 31
    Replies: 10751
    arandar

    No need to win a seat.

    That would make it almost impossible for smaller parties and individuals to get a lookin, unless they coattailed as ACT must do.  Do away with coattailing.  It’s wrong, undemocratic, verging on corruption.

    (I’d limit the spending – it’s very expensive to run a campaign and impossible for the small and less well funded to gain the eyes and ears of any but the already politically aware voter. Witness how even well known and well funded Colin Craig and Gareth Morgan we’re unable to get sufficient traction to get over the line. Not that I’m complaining; I wanted neither of them within cooee of Parliament. I’m merely saying, if we want a truly representative democracy then we must limit the spending amount and sources.)

    Simply crossing the vote threshhold, currently 5%, but recommended to be lowered to 4% I think, should guarantee a seat.

    That, in itself, would bring our Parliament closer to Don’s ideal of more independents in the House.

    Arandar

    #1717133
    paulinem
    Member
    Member since: July 8, 2006
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 984
    paulinem

    Aranda under STV there would be a chance for independents to get into power. As to be elected  you only need to get the proportion of votes in YOUR elector. Re money helps BUT if you were well known in your elector seat re good works, vocaly etc  campaign  on local issues and you stood for Parliament  then there is a good chance you would be the 2nd or 3rd PREFERENCE in a STV by your local voters in an election. This is the point under STV  voters vote for candidates in their election ie 4 candidates A,B,C, or D …. stand for Parliament. YOu vote for  candidate B as youor  FIRST preference candidate,  then you are asked to vote for a SECOND prefernce etc then Third the Forth candidate as a preference … now when the count is taken, your B candidate may get say 40% of the first preference votes. while A may get 35% C 10% and D 5 %.

    As I said under STV the winner MUST get 50% of the preference  vote of the voters  . So then the count goes back and counts the 2nd choice votes adds them to the total of 1st choices ABCD received …. if still no candidate gets 50% of the preference votes when the 2nd choices are added- they then go to the 3rd choice of voters and add it to ABC and D  total votes …most likely by this time one candidate  would have succeeded getting 50 %  of the preference votes and would be declared to be the winner of the electoral vote.

    STV is a very democratic proportion system, no one can coat tail to get into Parliament as ACT did, under STV   Now because STV is a very local  election  to get voted into power, money will not necessary help the winner of the seat, but reputation among the community etc could help.

    Also Aranda I like the idea of electoral seats as  the winner of the seat  can become more involved on issues that locals are interested in. For  the winner of the seat owes its voting loyalty to  the voters in his/her electorate, not the party they stand for.

Viewing 10 posts - 5,921 through 5,930 (of 6,674 total)

The topic ‘Politics Today’ is closed to new replies.

Advertisement
 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close X  
GrownUps

Register

Join 165,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site. We can’t wait to meet you. Enjoy!

Please tick the box to continue:

GrownUps

Excellent, you're all signed up for the GrownUps newsletter!

An email has been sent to the email address you provided for when you're ready to finish setting up your user profile.

We hope to see you soon!