Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I/S, OK, so you're down on National, but don't you find it just a bit troubling that Labour is prepared to rush thru poorly conceived legislation in order to increase its chances of electoral sucess?
I don't accept the premise. The bill is there to fix the serious problems in our electoral law exposed during the last election. And I would find it very troubling if a government did not try to fix them.
(Which is one of the reasons I'm so down on National: they deny there are problems, because they can and do rort them to their advantage).
And I don't accept there's been a rush either. The bill has had a full select committee process (which has improved it greatly, BTW). It will get a thorough airing in the committee stage. It is not being passed under urgency. There is a deadline to pass it, given that it must come into force on January 1 next year, but that's hardly unusual. This is the normal legislative process. If you think that that's undemocratic, then frankly, I think you have some pretty serious problems with our entire system of government.
-
Another thing to bear in mind BTW is the way in which MMP has changed Parliamentary and committee proceedings. In addition to the formal legislative process, there is also an informal process of coalition building and management, with ongoing negotiations between coalition partners to ensure the government has the numbers every step of the way. The government went into the EFB seeking the broadest coalition of parties it could - but the blunt fact is that if you are unwilling to contribute the numbers to help a bill pass, you get no input - it's that simple.
-
Oh, come on Idiot/Savant... it seem pretty clear from the beginning that Labour wasn't interested in having National involved in the formulation of this bill from the beginning
And it was very clear from the beginning that national simply wasn't interested in real reform. They thought that everything they did during the 2005 campaign was just peachy. They thought being able to collude with the Brethren, the Fair Tax lobby, and the Talley brothers was just great. They think that money in politics is just fine, and that other party's problems boil down to their not having enough of it. More imporantly, they indicated that they would not help provide the numbers for a serious reform bill, and would oppose it for political reasons no matter what. The latter especially makes talking to them a complete waste of time. Why bother to indulge them if they're not going to usefully contribute? Find a coalition you can work with (a very broad coalition in terms of political views), and get on with the job.
(or, in short, they'd said they weren't interested, and the government took them at their word. It's a bit rich therefore to complain about it).
National does have a chance to redeem itself during the committee stage, and I'll be watching closely to see whether the amendments they offer are constructive attempts at helping to create a genuinely better electoral regime, or simple wrecking behaviour. But looking at their past performance, I expect the latter.
-
Graeme: I'd find it easier to take National's complaints seriously if they'd ever tried to be constructive on this bill. They didn't, and were sidelined as a result. There is simply no point in trying to seek "consensus" with people who have already indicated that they are not interested.
-
All done; the bill passed 65 - 54, with national, ACT, the Maori party, Copeland and Field against.
Anne Tolley complained the select committee process was undemocratic as the minority opposing the bill were continually outvoted. I don't think that word means what she thinks it means...
-
Hmmm... people seem to have calmed down a bit now.
If you can't tune in, I'm liveblogging it here
-
P.S. The debate on the second reading is starting now.
And its a complete zoo. National can't win the argument on limiting their secret cash, so they barrack like a pack of baboons.
-
I heard on the 5pm news on RNZ that the plan is to get all the parties' general secretaries together to talk about how the law is intended to be interpreted, so that everyone has the same understanding, and some input into that understanding. That sounds like a good idea to me, I hope particular parties won't boycott that process just to grandstand.
As do I. But I'm not holding my breath. National seems to have raised bad faith to an art form on this issue.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I'd be more impressed if - just for once - they did something constructive and offered some useful amendments to fix the identified problems with the bill, rather than just screaming, pouting, and demanding the continuation of the (rich-benefitting) status quo.
-
Graeme: what do you think of Dean Knight's proposed amendment? While it may very well be unnecessary, I think it pretty much covers the bases around placards, megaphones and the like.
-
Angus: actually, the AA and GetUpNZ could spend as much as they liked talking to their own membership, as communications by an organisation with its members are exempt.
If this results in the formation of groups like GetUp over here, then so much the better for our democracy.