Winston sacks Horan

[Ab]

Ho ho ho, this will be fun:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10851889

[Golden Teapot]

I find it quite surprising that some think that because a list MP is expelled by their party that they should leave government.

Fully ahead of the election the list for each party is available and anyone voting for a party knows (or could know if they bothered to check) which list MPs they are potentially endorsing by their vote. If list MPs make it into parliament it is because sufficient voters endorsed them - this is essentially the same way non-list MPs get into parliament too. Really there is no material difference between these two groups other than the aggregation unit used to count votes.

[plaz0r]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I find it quite surprising that some think that because a list MP is expelled by their party that they should leave government.

Fully ahead of the election the list for each party is available and anyone voting for a party knows (or could know if they bothered to check) which list MPs they are potentially endorsing by their vote. If list MPs make it into parliament it is because sufficient voters endorsed them - this is essentially the same way non-list MPs get into parliament too. Really there is no material difference between these two groups other than the aggregation unit used to count votes.

I'm surprised you think they shouldn't. For all intents and purposes, list MPs exist solely to bring the number of seats each party holds up to the levels required by the party vote on the ballot form.

You're not choosing a person with your party vote; you're choosing a party. Despite whatever you might say about the party lists being available in advance of the election, when it comes down to it you're voting for a party because you want that party to have more power in parliament.

If a list MP leaves (or is expelled from) their party but stays in parliament, that party no longer holds the appropriate proportion of seats. I would have thought they should be automatically replaced by the next person down on that party's list.

[xor]

Originally Posted by plaz0r

I'm surprised you think they shouldn't. For all intents and purposes, list MPs exist solely to bring the number of seats each party holds up to the levels required by the party vote on the ballot form.

You're not choosing a person with your party vote; you're choosing a party. Despite whatever you might say about the party lists being available in advance of the election, when it comes down to it you're voting for a party because you want that party to have more power in parliament.

If a list MP leaves (or is expelled from) their party but stays in parliament, that party no longer holds the appropriate proportion of seats. I would have thought they should be automatically replaced by the next person down on that party's list.

Hypothetical scenario: What if the leaders of the party have ill intentions for wanting to kick out a member in their party who holds a seat in parliament?

[crocos]

I see your straw-man argument and respond with a pithy one liner!

[xor]

Horan hasn't been charged/convicted of any crime as of yet. I understand the reasons why it would be a good idea to remove an MP from parliament but I think it would be a rather grey area and open to abuse.

If you had a system like that in place could Shearer then kick Cunliffe out of parliament?

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by xor

If you had a system like that in place could Shearer then kick Cunliffe out of parliament?

Cunliffe is an electorate MP, so no. Also AFAIK, the larger parties have a more rigorous process for removal written into their constitutions, so it's not entirely at the whim of of the leader.

[xor]

Quite right

[Ab]

NZ First has a constitution, and it says that a member can't be expelled at the whim of the leader.

[Lightspeed]

Ugh, I kinda agree with GT. But lets just assume that's because I don't understand the nuances of politics.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by plaz0r

You're not choosing a person with your party vote; you're choosing a party.

Nonsense - it is preordained which person it will be and so you are choosing them if there is a person to choose. You can pretend otherwise if you like but the brutal and blunt reality is every voter is told in advance exactly who the person is going to be.

[StN]

I guess the chicken and egg thing is that it is peceived that the party will make the person, when in fact the person will shape the party. The assumption that you will get a cookie cutter red/blue/green/black person just because they sign up to the constitution doesn't always play out.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Originally Posted by Ab

NZ First has a constitution, and it says that a member can't be expelled at the whim of the leader.

What Winnie the poo said is that Horan was expelled from the NZF caucus, not necessarily NZF the party. I bet Horan is still a NZF party member, because usually they have some long drawn out procedure for expulsion.

The thing is, it is Winnie who said all those things in public against Horan. Given his past record of truth telling, I'm not incline to believe his words, no more than Horan's. And right now, without any concrete evidence, words are all we have.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

The thing is, it is Winnie who said all those things in public against Horan.

Winston's too clever for that. He doesn't say things in public; he says things in the House where he's protected from defamation proceedings by parliamentary privilege.

[Saladin]

I imagine Winston has to come down hard on the guy that allegedly stole from an old lady, since that's most of his voters...