Posts by Myles Thomas
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I also disagree with your assumption tht voters vote for candidate they prefer at bi-elections or when looking at party lists. I believe that the vast majority of voters care little for the personality of their electorate candidate, or study party lists for names they like or dislike. Sadly I believe most voters follow their preference of leader. Second comes their preference of policy. Nothing else comes into it for most voters so arguing that open party lists in some shape or form are important is irrelevant.
Still it'll make voting far more interesting for the politically engaged minority. And that would be a good thing. Every election I exit the polling station underwhelmed so a bit of mental challenge would be great.
Otherwise agreeing with most of what you suggest.
-
Re: 42 "Lots of people stand in an electorate knowing that they won’t win, but putting one’s name forward for election when you don’t even want to win seems almost dishonest, and I’m not sure we should be writing our electoral laws to benefit those who wish to run in order not to be elected."
Tosh. All of those candidates who go into an election without hope of winning would still happily win the electorate. Whether they're high up a party list or single cause battlers they would dream of winning the popularity contest that is each election. I honestly can't think who you might be referring to who wouldn't want to win their electorate given half a chance. John Key cares sweet fa for Helensville but he still probably wants to win it.
-
Sometimes what we want from a local MP is just plain competence. If this went through I doubt any MP with half a brain would choose to stay as an electorate candidate if it was vaguely marginal. That would mean many seats would be represented by MPs who are inexperienced, desperate or stupid. Not a big change from what we have now but still, why tip the rules to actually encourage munters in parliament.
-
Whatever challenge posed to smaller parties this would be far harder for labour and national who must gamble many of their electorate candidates to what could be a very close call. Do they risk Carmel Sepuloni or Paula Bennett to win the electorate or go for a weaker candidate who then wins taking a place off their list.
-
Hi, the TVNZ 7 ratings figures that I used came from a Chris Barton article in the Herald a month ago and Sky themselves. I'm grateful to Nielsen for giving me the definitive figures (without charge) and they confirm Hans' figures to be correct. Apologies and proof that you can't believe everything you read in the papers.
-
I think Clare Curran has ideas on how to fund a new umbrella public service broadcaster, and it would be one or more of what you suggest, BUT she's not wanting to alienate anyone before the election.
Of your suggested funding ideas, the best is number 2: a local production levy on Pay TV or just all commercial TV profits. Sky makes a huge profit, yet they make sweet FA local programming, AND have a monopoly on some of the country's prime bandwidth. If they want the right to broadcast and make all that dosh, it's only fair they siphon off a small proportion of it (5% would be more than enough) for some public service TV. As you say, it works nicely in Australia, and elsewhere. In the UK, ITV was tasked with helping fund the brilliant Channel 4 in it's infancy and look at it now.
-
Cracker: Send in the Clowns, in reply to Russell Brown,
The Listener is moving away from the TVNZ 6 & 7 audience. Towards Good Morning, Fair Go and whatever programme TV3 puts Paul Henry on.
-
Cracker: Send in the Clowns, in reply to Ken Sparks,
Absolutely, this show ain't over yet. TVNZ 7 has a year and an election to live through.
-
Cracker: Send in the Clowns, in reply to Islander,
Yes the online petition is at www.savetvnz7.co.nz
Get the word out too... we need loads of signatures