|
8th September 2008, 13:59 | #81 |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Anyone else think the whole Electoral Vote thing is pointless, since the make-up of the house is pretty much determined entirely by the party vote anyway?
What difference does it make to me if Wellington Central is represented by National or Labour, when policy is set by whoever has the majority in the house ? Do we really think Helen Clark is in there pushing Mt Albert issues for example? I think they either need to cut the system entirely - go to 99 MPs, decided by party vote, then allocate one to each of the 99 electorates worked out by party vote majority in each area, so there is at least one person you can write to with your local concerns. Or alternatively, go the whole hog and set up a bicambrial system and have electorate MPs sitting in a different house, so that the electorate vote actually means something. |
8th September 2008, 14:02 | #82 |
|
Without the electoral votes, you wouldn't have minority parties who can't get above the 5% threshold but manage to do work for "their" areas get into parliment.
Basically, goodbye the Maori party. |
8th September 2008, 14:04 | #83 | |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Quote:
|
|
8th September 2008, 14:11 | #84 |
|
Why would you want too?
In effect, you have disparity in the government due to electoral vote. A party that struggles to reach 3-4%, ends up with 6 or 7 electoral seats. |
8th September 2008, 16:15 | #85 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
8th September 2008, 17:00 | #86 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
8th September 2008, 17:24 | #87 | |
|
Quote:
What I find to be most undemocratic about our current system is that for the past 3 terms 40-49% of the population has basically been ignored. We need more direct democracy. More citizen assemblies would be a good start. |
|
8th September 2008, 17:26 | #88 |
|
Good point regarding electorates.
|
8th September 2008, 17:30 | #89 | |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Quote:
|
|
8th September 2008, 20:24 | #90 | |
|
Quote:
thats all. thats what they do. more more more more
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
8th September 2008, 22:40 | #91 | |
|
Quote:
They don't stop there either, think about privatising ACC which is what they want to do, even though PwC's review apparently said this would be a dumb idea. So here even you have a private capitalist organisation saying dumb idea, and yet National are still stuck on their old fashioned philosophies. Seriously, asset sales/privatisation is Nationals biggest flaw yet they stick to it. Basically its same old national as last time, just a new face at the top. Re: Electorates -- heck yeah, ditch them, they make no sense anymore. Possibly give more power to regional councils or something if you want more local/direct influence on regional affairs. E.g. by increasing the budgets of local councils through giving back some of the locally generated GST, and making them responsible for transport/etc. (like american sales tax, only we've already got GST) |
|
8th September 2008, 22:55 | #92 | |
|
Quote:
Get rid of the electorates as they only help to decrease the proportionality of government but I would keep the 120 seats rather than dropping them down to 99. Would have to drop the threshold down from 5% to about 3%. |
|
8th September 2008, 23:00 | #93 | |
get to da choppa
|
Quote:
|
|
8th September 2008, 23:15 | #94 | ||
|
Quote:
Gives a quick run down of the main points: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00226.htm Quote:
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28234 |
||
9th September 2008, 14:14 | #95 |
|
Labour releases another National policy
|
9th September 2008, 15:00 | #96 |
|
The four policies leaked to Mallard were on biofuels, conservation, environment, and science. IMO it's more likely they were all the result of of a single leak, and Mallard is just releasing them one at a time for dramatic effect rather than them being a series of leaks. You're right that it doesn't look good, though.
|
9th September 2008, 19:29 | #97 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
Basically, everything in your post is a misinterpretation (perhaps deliberate) of what has been written. |
|
9th September 2008, 21:41 | #98 | |
|
Quote:
A. The magic of the market place. B. Crony capitalism shafting the proletarians. Would you like to offer a more detailed option A, or offer a third alternative? perhaps you could provide more detail into what National is proposing? |
|
10th September 2008, 16:44 | #99 | |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 16:55 | #100 |
|
But they're focused on the WRONG issues, the Greens.
That's my issue with them. |
10th September 2008, 17:08 | #101 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 17:20 | #102 |
|
Well for one, their policy around climate change worries me.
At a time when many (non agricultural) businesses are feeling the pressures of the economy, they want to propose a system where income gained via a method that would produce carbon receives a tax that goes towards lessening the impact of energy costs/carbon neutrality. They're wanting to lead the world, when we don't have enough resources to do it without a huge impact on business and they want to increase the amount of recycling we do, despite proven information showing it is energy inefficient to recycle most materials except aluminum. Also, wanting to allow access to all governmental databases to anyone in the public is a little bit of a bug bear of mine too. |
10th September 2008, 17:25 | #103 | |
Raptus regaliter
|
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 17:27 | #104 |
|
Adding a tax to goods produced in this country makes it even harder for NZ products to compete internationally. If all countries producing the particular product have an equivalent ETS then that makes for a level playing field, but leading the way in ETS is fucking stupid.
|
10th September 2008, 17:34 | #105 | |
|
Quote:
? |
|
10th September 2008, 17:41 | #106 | |
|
Quote:
But nice to see you bought your trampoline with you. |
|
10th September 2008, 17:41 | #107 | |
|
Quote:
As for your other point, no first world country has the ability to cut emissions without impacting business on a large scale. Unless you've got a better idea I would kindly suggest that you suck it up, or do you think the problem will magically right itself at some stage in the future? Putting pressure on the market will help solve the problem far more effectively than simple ad-hoc government and philanthropically funded research. RE- recycling, it's a valid point. I tend to think in the long term as techniques evolve to make it more efficient it will become a necessity, however we have bigger problems to face right now. Reducing the amount of waste we create while focusing on efficient, emission neutral energy would probably be our best bet for the short term. |
|
10th September 2008, 17:45 | #108 |
|
@ Adonis
Mostly it's that they don't specify what level of detail they want people to be able to view, which worries me. Knowing the way data structures at Ministry level work, I don't see them being able to keep data unidentifiable. My idea regarding climate control change is that we, as a small country, do not have to be world leaders. Hell, look at our closest ally in the world - Australia. They haven't even signed up to be part of Kyoto and they're in a much better position resource wise to do so. Yes, we should be concerned for our environment, but not at the absolute detriment of living for the average New Zealand. They're worried about the impact of large businesses causing energy prices to soar meaning individuals struggle for transportation and heating issues, that's a fair concern.. Why then, are they not looking at ways to increase public transportation usage? Why are they not looking at food prices which are also sky rocketing and looking at ways through subsidising local markets to decrease the price of fresh NZ food - while increasing prices on processed alternates coming in from overseas. To me, they've got their heads in the wrong places. Recycling, well rather than invest the money in making people recycle when we know it's energy inefficent, why not invest the money in researching possible alternates that don't negatively impact businesses or our economy? Last edited by Haydos : 10th September 2008 at 17:46. |
10th September 2008, 17:58 | #109 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 18:07 | #110 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
picture, thousand words, me lazy
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 18:10 | #111 | |
Here be dragons
|
Quote:
__________________
Peace. |
|
10th September 2008, 18:14 | #112 |
|
Oh? Find them on the Green Party website of listed policies.
They SHOULD be key policies of the Green Party but they've released no policy that states how they intend to do either of these things, they're more interested in ensuring we pressure our neighbour to be part of Kyoto and penalising companies for production. |
10th September 2008, 18:16 | #113 |
|
I think the Greens were launching their transport policy this weekend actually, I heard it includes a $1 Flat-Rate Fare for all off-peak public transport use.
I think that would "increase public transportation usage". |
10th September 2008, 18:17 | #114 |
Here be dragons
|
do you get all of your info about everything from the internet?
__________________
Peace. |
10th September 2008, 18:18 | #115 | |
|
It would, off peak.. but let's not even question how they would fund it, lets question how it would reduce the traffic peak problems which are far more damaging/important. (energy, flow and maintenance)
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 18:29 | #116 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th September 2008, 18:36 | #117 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Don't be silly.
HC hates and fears penises |
10th September 2008, 18:38 | #118 |
|
Except Winston's.
|
10th September 2008, 18:46 | #119 |
|
^^ will you be expecting any level of detail on policy from the nats?
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
10th September 2008, 18:50 | #120 | |
|
Quote:
Why lead the way, when even if we produced zero carbon we wouldn't have an impact on the world...the Greens support harming the economy because the thought of being green in their fucked up worlds means more than the success of NZ, and still we don't know for sure if man made carbon is even a problem. At a guess I would say 90% of people who vote greens are waster fucks |
|