- #1717050halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4946halcyon April 18, 2019 at 10:47 pm
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.#1717054don021MemberMember since: May 15, 2012
Replies: 1775don021 April 19, 2019 at 11:31 am
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.#1717065arandar April 19, 2019 at 1:07 pm
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#1717090don021MemberMember since: May 15, 2012
Replies: 1775don021 April 19, 2019 at 5:06 pm
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.#1717100arandar April 19, 2019 at 5:38 pm
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#1717118paulinem April 19, 2019 at 7:35 pm
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#1717120mommabear70MemberMember since: February 20, 2017
Replies: 1961mommabear70 April 20, 2019 at 12:30 am
MMP adjustment required: a party must win at least one electoral seat to have members in Parliament.#1717121paulinem April 20, 2019 at 7:45 am
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!!#1717122arandar April 20, 2019 at 8:04 am
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#1717133paulinem April 20, 2019 at 11:16 am
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.
The topic ‘Politics Today’ is closed to new replies.