Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes the Security Council is in urgent need of reform, as is common knowledge. But like any established system of power, will not be easy. Yes I believe that all nations in the UN General Assembly should have one equal vote each, as they do.
It is not correct to say that matters 'talked about' at the United Nations do not become law. There are many international treaties that are part of international law, and its human rights declarations and covenants also pass into national law, sometimes word for word.The European Parliament is modeled on Human rights charters, and it enacts binding laws. So too the International Criminal Court is a UN Body. Besides, there is something much more important than positive law (from parliament) - what should lie at the basis of all stautes, that is , moral principles. That is what the United Nations has done, provided a forum for the constitution of moral laws, ie..or human rights.
The Childrens Party is not a big issue at all, just the same as any other party which wishes to form itself to represent a particular constituency, but will drop the topic, as you wish..
I don't believe minority groups in the big parties can break off and form viable new parties. The pv threshold is to high to be viable.
As the Royal Commission pointed out, " any democratic political system should value minority representation. If a minority happens to be an ethnic group, then ethnic representation in the legislature should also be valued...for parties representing national minorities ..." (para 3.47) Parties, not individual MP's who are "ethnic". Ones ethnicity is not a claim for representing an ethnic group.Yes someone may seek to form a 'Women's Party', if the threshold was lower, it might be viable. yes women have increased their presence in the halls of power, but how has that translated into equality for women?
-
"under MMP we got our first female PMs, tripled the number of Maori representatives, tripled the Pacific Islanders, got our first Chinese reps (on the list, couldn’t happen in FPP), and even got a transsexual MP, and a Rastafarian. A lot of this was in the two big parties. These were good things".
How is it that MMP was responsible for our two female MP's. Helen Clark was implacably anti- MMP..
You seem to confuse the term 'representatives' , with the notion of Maori MPs, Pacific Island MP's etc.
Just because an MP happens to be a PI, for ex, doesn't mean he represents the PI constituency. There is no such identifiable constituency, for the simple reason that there is not a party that claims to represent PI's, a party which seeks to attract voters of same and represent them. Just because an MP happens to be a Pacific Islander, doesn't make him a representative of Pacific Islanders, or a Maori MP, like Winston P, a representative of the Maori constituency.
There is no MP in parliament representing the LBGT constituency, and never has been, because there is no party explicitly claiming to do so.
Even Ministers of Maori Affairs, as pointed out by The Royal Commission, "were often forced to sacrifice or compromise Maori interests to the electoral concerns of the party they represented". I thin k the work I am looking for is autonomy, not patronage. -
You cite some individual members of some of the different groups in NZ who have gone into parliament. But they are generally members of parties dominated by groups to whom they do not belong, to whom they owe first loyalty, and rely on their continued patronage. I want to see those groups represented in their own right - such as a Pacific Island Party, Asian Party, Rainbow Party.
The United nations is a community, the general assembly is a house of representatives, just as nations are communities, and parliament is a house of reps. Same processes apply. I am sure the United Nations are making decisions every day. Not only that, their guiding principles (human rights) have some moral worth, whereas those of nations generally represent the interests of their dominant groups.
What adults are speaking for children, Paula Bennett?
Short of children having the vote, with a lower threshold, there could emerge a Children and Youth Party. There may be sufficient voters who believe they should have a voice in parliament to directly represent their interests - instead of relying on trust, or rather, hope.
From our discussion have come to the view that the lower the PV threshold, the better. I am more strongly of the view the OST should go.
. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
"The massive shift to MMP didn’t cause a giant upsetting in the power structures – it just forced in more diversity, more representation of minority interests".
Agree with the former, disagree with the latter. To me, diversity isn't a smattering of basically centrist parties- Act, Dunne, NZF. The Greens will move closer to the centre, to capture more votes, and get into government. The future of the Maori Party precarious, and indeed, of the Maori seats.
Unlike yourself, I am not particular bothered if they abolish the one seat threshold, although I agree it is a safety valve, if quirky, and it has contra indications. It was a bad idea from the start, just copying Germany's desire to preserve the strong regional votes of Bavaria. They should have simply opted for a lower threshold.More voices in parliament changes its very 'nature' , because these voices are able to be heard,and become part of a 'collective conscience' (Emile Durkheim). parliament is the collective expression of the community it is (supposed) to represent - is a community of minds itself, the symbolic expression of the wider one, integrates the fragments into a single whole. Just as the UN general assembly included all the worlds nations, it symbolized a new world community, albeit flawed. Before that, there wasn't one, just separate nations who were unconnected. Inclusion connects people into a community where all members, even the 'very small' have something in common that they wish to preserve. Sometimes the smallest voices are the ones that need to be heard, and and the voiceless, even more so. In stands to reason that the smallest voices will try and speak for the voiceless.
For example, In our parliament currently, children and youth are for all intents, voiceless (25% of population approx under 16). They have no direct representatives in their own right, or adults speaking specifically for them. If this were to come about, it would be a barometer of genuine democratic change IMHO. Is this desirable? Why? How might this be facilitated, under our current MMP system.
Any views on this folks? -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
Maybe that is the difference in our perspectives Ben, although we both share the view re the PVT.
For me, I don't care if even God Herself said that lowering the threshold won't make a difference to the voting landscape (no offense). Its not relevant, IMHO. The important thing is that the voters (whom democracy is meant to serve) have a choice, and that the political market place provide that choice, rather than deem them too insignificant to participate as equals, and their particular political aspirations, and representation, literally don't count. That said, some threshold is necessary, but not 5, or even 4%. Too high.I mean, in a similar vein, its like the UN saying that only countries with over 4 million people can be a member, to prevent fragmentation.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
Since the 1980s, NZ has had a neoliberals of various flavours. It’s something that the people, in sufficient numbers, still think is a good idea.
"I’ll be surprised if National can possibly remain so popular, whilst making no improvements whatsoever in practically any measure of governance. It’s quite mystifying, really.."
Are you sure you are not a Labour man, Ben?
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
When you say 'we' have got the democracy we deserve', who do you mean by 'we'? . I think the democracy 'we' have got is very much determined by the populist center, so its the democracy they want, and others who don't want, but get anyway. If the threshold was 2%, that is where all votes were closer to being equal, then our democracy would truly start to evolve, on steroids!.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Yes but Act is probably gone, United future marginal, and the Maori party is getting smaller and smaller. A 'conservative Party' - you mean a new churchy party coming into the house? Yes that is possible, and desirable. I would rather they be in the raw, as it were, rather than hidden in NAT, NZ First and Labour.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yes I agree Graeme that the RC didn't see Nat/Lab as losing their role as the lynchpins of future governments. However, I do believe they would have hoped that increasing direct representation of other sections of the community, would have lessened their dominance more than it has
"I don’t think their intention or hope was that new voices would come into existence. Just that if they did, they would be heard".
My reading of the report is a little different. eg.at 2.137 "MMP would provide for representation of various social, economic and ethnic groups while not compromising political integration. This is achieved in two ways. First, major parties are provided with real incentives to appeal to and include significant groups within their party tickets and structures. In particular, by providing an effective vote for Maori and thereby removing the need for separate Maori representation, it would enhance co operation at a political level between Maori and non Maori. Second, while MMP provides increased chances for minor party or special interest group representation in their own right,"
Note 'in their own right'
at 2.181 Finally, in terms of legitimacy MMP is, and will be seen to be, much fairer in giving representation to parties and other groups or interests. This is significant in terms of preserving confidence in our electoral process in a more diverse society...
In our view, (a 5% threshold) this would be too great an obstacle to the development of new and emerging political forces".How right they were.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
"The dominant parties could increase internal diversity to broaden their reach. Which they did. This was a win for the system, and the country, which doesn’t really need to have political conflict over the kind of difference that excluded people from power before"
I would probably be of the same view as you Ben, if I were a labour or nat supporter. But I'm not, like many people. A re-imagining and expanding of their wardrobe is not an increase in diversity. They are still wedded to their own traditions and ideologies, be they left or right. Direct representation is the marker of diversity, not window dressing. The high threshold is still excluding different (from what?) people from having their own, direct representation, unmediated by Labour or Nat. this is why the Royal commission was so keen on what they called 'effective' Maori representation, that is direct, and not trickling down from the Labour Party.
I cannot agree with your notion of MMP 'evolving'. It makes it out to be a process of trying to get equality of vote, like all manner of equality, a 'natural' one, rather than one fought for, and hindered, by human agency.