Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to James Caygill,
What about the justification I put forward in favour Graeme? I think they’re valid, do you?
A longer term means more time for a Cabinet to get policy working through the wider Executive Branch, and be able to assess whether policy is working as intended within the term.
I certainly appreciate the theory. It is a good argument in favour of a longer term.
So good an argument that it there must surely be oodles of evidence of precisely this happening in other countries which have longer terms.
Which is why I am sure you, or someone else, will soon point me to an example or two from the United Kingdom, or Canada (both with five-year terms!), where a government has realised during its term that one of its policies has failed, and then repealed it. Or any other example from anywhere comparable with a longer term (which is almost everywhere) that points to something similar.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to James Caygill,
A four year cycle might give the (elected) Government and the Executive enough time to learn how to work together by year 3.
That is certainly my experience….
Even if this is true - and I'll concede it may well be - it only affects the first term of a government. And it is rare that they don't get another three or even six years.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
I know several Chinese people, for instance, who will swear blind that the Chinese government is the wisest and best form of government ever invented, and they can pile up endless evidence to that effect. Since they don’t give a flying fuck about human rights, they don’t find those counterarguments compelling.
Yet we can look at the assumptions they make, and draw entirely proper conclusions based on our different values. Of course the analogies will be imperfect, but that doesn't mean they will be entirely unhelpful.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to James Caygill,
’d be interested to know your view Graeme if Parliament altered the Constitution Act with a 75% majority, which they are legally entitled to do , and inserted a four year term, but put that change in term off for a number of years in the future, thus removing any immediate self-interest (noting of course that some will always see self interest in any term lengthening move). Would you be as opposed?
Yes.
My opposition is not based on a belief that it is wrong for MPs to do this because of they are self-interested. My opposition is based on a belief that it should be for voters to determine how often we get the option of kicking the Government from office.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Kevin Welsh,
When some of the more controversial pieces of legislation passed in New Zealand in recent times; Search & Surveillance, Electoral Finance etc, have been of the knee-jerk variety. Then a four year term will make no difference.
Search and Surveillance was not knee-jerk. It was the result of a many year-long Law Commission and internal government policy process, covering both Labour and National Governments.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to DexterX,
If there was a referendum then give us three options being a two year, three year and four year term and then take the average outcome of that – which would more likely fall in the two to three year option.
That's not how the reserved section is drafted. Some alternative needs the support of at least 50% of voters.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to DexterX,
What is your/the measure of better government?
Whatever someone who want to claim that some other country is better governed than we are, or that some country has improved its government by increasing its term..
I'm not the one claiming a four-year term will lead to better government. If someone who supports a four-year term on this basis would like to explain what they mean, we're all eyes.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
losing power here generally means 6 years of the other crowd
No it doesn't. There has been one two-term government in the history of New Zealand.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Barnard,
But surely it's not the point, surely the point is will WE be better governed comparable to how we are now?
It is. But finding evidence to show that one way or the other will be difficult. I think it should be the case that if countries are, on average, better governed if they have longer terms, then across the whole range of countries, those with longer terms should be better governed, on average.
-
Will someone take up the cudgel?
Does someone have the evidence to show that UK, France, South Africa, Italy and Germany are better governed than NZ?