Discussion:
The Parliamentary term length - make it longer?
Add Reply
Crash
2020-11-06 02:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.

The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.

I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.


--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2020-11-06 08:40:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Rich80105
2020-11-06 09:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
John Bowes
2020-11-06 20:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
Bullshit! The Maori party won a seat Rich. TOP didn't. It's perfectly fair. Unlike you and the circus we have controlling NZ now!
Gordon
2020-11-07 07:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
Rich you are losing the idea behind MMP. There are electroal seats, which
are FPP. This gives approx half the MPs needed. The rest are filled so that
the % of the various party vote equals the seats. This is a fudge to
overcome the FPP issues. The two are separate.

Rounding errors also come into play. However if a candidate wins an electrol
seat they must be elected. Was not David Seymore in the House when the ACT
party has less than 5% of the vote?
Rich80105
2020-11-07 07:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
Rich you are losing the idea behind MMP. There are electroal seats, which
are FPP. This gives approx half the MPs needed. The rest are filled so that
the % of the various party vote equals the seats. This is a fudge to
overcome the FPP issues. The two are separate.
Rounding errors also come into play. However if a candidate wins an electrol
seat they must be elected. Was not David Seymore in the House when the ACT
party has less than 5% of the vote?
I do not object to an electorate vote giving a winner for that
electorate, regardless of the number of party votes achieved. David
Seymour did not actively seek votes for the ACT party in Epsom. What
I do object to is having such a seat giving the party of that
candidate the entitlement being allotted additional MPs ignoring the
threshold (and yes this time ACT and the GReens did get above that 5%
threshold). I also think we would be better using preferential voting
for the electorate seats - that may for example have given a different
result in Auckland Central at the recent election.

I agree that additional MPs are elected from the party vote, so that
the resulting total representation is as close as possible to overall
party preferences. That is the way in which our MMP system was
designed, and which we voted to put in place.
Crash
2020-11-07 07:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
The current system gives preference to a party that wins an electorate
seat (exempt from the 5% threshold, Maori Party in 2020) compared to
one that cannot (TOP and others in 2020). I see this as fair -
winning an electorate seat is an achievement worthwhile of this
preference. Equally I do not support Maori, TOP or any other party
that failed to get into Parliament in the 2020 election.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-11-07 07:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
The current system gives preference to a party that wins an electorate
seat (exempt from the 5% threshold, Maori Party in 2020) compared to
one that cannot (TOP and others in 2020). I see this as fair -
winning an electorate seat is an achievement worthwhile of this
preference. Equally I do not support Maori, TOP or any other party
that failed to get into Parliament in the 2020 election.
I do not agree that an electorate seat shuold give such a large
advantage. We know that the Epsom seat is by arrangment between two
parties - in 2017 from memory TOP gained more party seats than ACT,
and ACT would not have needed many more to have got a second MP while
still having fewer party votes than TOP. I happen not to support those
minor parties, but that is irrelevant - it should not be too difficult
for a small or new party to get at least one representative - making
that the equivalent of abut 3 seats for a party that gets an
electorate seat by for example an Epsom arrangement is simply unfair.
John Bowes
2020-11-07 10:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had been
in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited by a
3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the pre-election
habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period at most -
projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or of no more
than passing interest. Prior to the election, the opposition should
focus equally on government failures and future vision - with the
Government focusing on achievements, progress on their initiatives and
a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
I am also fairly neutral on the term. The threshold is too high - an
independent review recommended it be reduced. It is inconsistent with
fairness, but worse it is inconsistent with the exemption from the
threshold that has just resulted in the Maori party getting an extra
MP with far fewer than 5% of the party votes. At the last election the
TOP party got more party votes than the Maori party this time, but got
no MPs. I don;t support either of those parties, but inherently the
comparison indicates that our system is not fair.
The current system gives preference to a party that wins an electorate
seat (exempt from the 5% threshold, Maori Party in 2020) compared to
one that cannot (TOP and others in 2020). I see this as fair -
winning an electorate seat is an achievement worthwhile of this
preference. Equally I do not support Maori, TOP or any other party
that failed to get into Parliament in the 2020 election.
I do not agree that an electorate seat shuold give such a large
advantage. We know that the Epsom seat is by arrangment between two
parties - in 2017 from memory TOP gained more party seats than ACT,
and ACT would not have needed many more to have got a second MP while
still having fewer party votes than TOP. I happen not to support those
minor parties, but that is irrelevant - it should not be too difficult
for a small or new party to get at least one representative - making
that the equivalent of abut 3 seats for a party that gets an
electorate seat by for example an Epsom arrangement is simply unfair.
Utter crap! If TOP had gained more party seats than ACT they'd have been in parliament you fucking moron! The only truth in your comment is that it's irrelevant Rich :)
George
2020-11-06 19:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-11-06 20:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I don't have a problem with list MPs. Just feel they shouldn't be allowed any sort of power. They shouldn't be on committees or be cabinet ministers (they should only be from the party that won the election!) after all they're only party hacks. Hell I'd go so far as to let MPs be either those who stand for a seat or list. The current system lets them be both which is not fair!
Gordon
2020-11-07 06:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I don't have a problem with list MPs. Just feel they shouldn't be allowed any sort of power. They shouldn't be on committees or be cabinet ministers (they should only be from the party that won the election!) after all they're only party hacks. Hell I'd go so far as to let MPs be either those who stand for a seat or list. The current system lets them be both which is not fair!
Remember we only elect the MPs to the House. How they decide to Govern is up
to them. If we do not like what they do we vote them out.

My beef is that I often can not vote for or against a good or idiot MP, as
they are elsewhere. Still nothing is perfect.
Rich80105
2020-11-07 03:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
John Bowes
2020-11-07 06:58:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
Rich80105
2020-11-07 08:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
John Bowes
2020-11-07 10:00:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!

Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Rich80105
2020-11-07 18:18:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
John Bowes
2020-11-08 06:48:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power! They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Rich80105
2020-11-08 18:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
National:
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
Nellie the Elephant
2020-11-09 00:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
Can you ever stick to the subject?
John Bowes
2020-11-09 04:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
Can you ever stick to the subject?
Rich wanders off with the blue birds whenever he knows he's just proved beyond doubt he's a fucking imbecile. Nothing new :)
John Bowes
2020-11-09 04:15:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
So just what has that got to do with this discussion Rich? Typical for you just a red herring tossed out in the vain hope it'll distract :) FAIL!
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
BULLSHIT! Your mistaking her for the virtue signalling useless bitch who achieved nothing in three years till she actually decided to listen to her advisors Rich and you know it!
Rich80105
2020-11-09 04:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:15:24 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
So just what has that got to do with this discussion Rich? Typical for you just a red herring tossed out in the vain hope it'll distract :) FAIL!
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
BULLSHIT! Your mistaking her for the virtue signalling useless bitch who achieved nothing in three years till she actually decided to listen to her advisors Rich and you know it!
What makes you think Judith Collins listened to her advisers, John?
And you are off topic, off the subject, and just "off" . . .
John Bowes
2020-11-09 10:15:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:15:24 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
So just what has that got to do with this discussion Rich? Typical for you just a red herring tossed out in the vain hope it'll distract :) FAIL!
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
BULLSHIT! Your mistaking her for the virtue signalling useless bitch who achieved nothing in three years till she actually decided to listen to her advisors Rich and you know it!
What makes you think Judith Collins listened to her advisers, John?
And you are off topic, off the subject, and just "off" . . .
Yet more bullshit from the king of lies! Besides which YOU were way off topic with your lies Rich!
John Bowes
2020-11-09 04:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 22:48:16 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:58:04 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Crash
Hell no. A longer term is simply a longer period before the
Government is held accountable to the voters. Three years is about
right for this. It imagine if the last coalition government had
been in for a 4-year term. No thanks.
The conjecture that 3 years is not long enough to deliver is pure
rubbish. It is necessary at each election earn the trust of voters
and if that is not possible after 3 years it will not be possible
after 4. For the Government of the day re-election depends on trust
and progress more than achievement, neither of which is inhibited
by a 3-year term or improved by longer terms.
I would like to see both National and Labour get into the
pre-election habit of delivering commitments over a 6-year period
at most - projecting policy impacts for longer is just pointless or
of no more than passing interest. Prior to the election, the
opposition should focus equally on government failures and future
vision - with the Government focusing on achievements, progress on
their initiatives and a refreshed future vision.
--
Crash McBash
Well put. I'd hate to see the threshold lowered from 5% and MP
numbers cut to ninety. Sixty holding seats and 30 list MPs!
Raise the threshold to 10% 80 MPs all elected. Overhangs used as gofors.
And two year terms
All MPs are currently elected.
Wrong! List MPs are appointed by the party. The party vote doesn't elect them just lets more of the hacks into parliament rich!
The parties only set a list order which cannot be changed after it is
submitted - the seats are allocated by the election authorities in
accordance with election law, following the results of votes cast.
The list seats are crap Rich! MPs should be one or the other! If they can't win a seat they should be gone not return as an MP after the electorate has rejected them!
Ffs Rich we've had this discussion before and no matter how you filibuster list MPs are just party hacks and should be paid less and have less say in government than they do at present!
Yet strangely no political party wants to follow your advice . . . .
Stop being stupider than usual Rich. The parties are happy with the status quo simply because it gives them more power!
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
That Rich is an outright lie! LABOUR was government at the time and was in agreement with National about MMP!

The politicians respond
Few of Labour's leaders welcomed the commission's recommendations, however, and the government tried to sideline the issue. Although National's leadership also disliked the idea of MMP, they saw an opportunity to embarrass the government over its failure to respond to the commission's proposals. The issue was also kept alive through the efforts of an effective lobby group, the Electoral Reform Coalition, led by Colin Clarke, Rod Donald and Phil Saxby and others. As each party tried to outmanoeuvre the other, both Labour and National entered the 1990 election campaign promising to hold referenda on electoral reforms that they did not particularly want."

This from page three of your attempt to change the subject :)
Post by Rich80105
Post by John Bowes
They all stood shoulder to shoulder and claimed they couldn't reach a consensus after the mp referendum and committee that followed. They don't give a damn about what we want and your glorious misleader is one of the worst!
Judith Collins is not my anything, but I agree that she does not give
a damn about what New Zealanders want.
Gordon
2020-11-09 06:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[snip]
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
We voted for the MMP system against trenchant opposition from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp
That Rich is an outright lie! LABOUR was government at the time and was in agreement with National about MMP!
Indeed with the exception of Jim Boldger, who could see that MMP might have
some advantages and that it was likely to become "successful".
Loading...