election 2008

[Saladin]

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.

[Haydos]

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.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Haydos

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.

Well you could reduce the thresh hold at the same time

[Haydos]

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.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Saladin

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.

Before MMP was introduced there were a few elections where National got into power but labour had a higher number of votes. Does it seem fair that a party with a minority vote is allowed to govern a nation?

[Haydos]

Originally Posted by xor

Before MMP was introduced there were a few elections where National got into power but labour had a higher number of votes. Does it seem fair that a party with a minority vote is allowed to govern a nation?

Could have been addressed by changing the electoral boundaries.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Could have been addressed by changing the electoral boundaries.

No, it couldn't have. If one party were to win say, 50 out of 99 electorates, all with a 1% margin, and the other wins 49 seats, all with a 20% margin, the former gets to govern even tho the latter got more votes overall. A proportional system is the only way to get around this.

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.

[Haydos]

Good point regarding electorates.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by xor

Before MMP was introduced there were a few elections where National got into power but labour had a higher number of votes. Does it seem fair that a party with a minority vote is allowed to govern a nation?

Umm, what's that got to do with anything? I was advocating removing the electorate vote, having the governing party be determined entirely by the proportional party vote.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Juju

a cash injection at the time of sale?

thats it.
thats all.

thats what they do.

more more more more

[erentz]

Originally Posted by chubby

thats it.
thats all.

thats what they do.

more more more more

Followed by an expensive buy back when the assets have been completely stripped and profits taken overseas == bad move for country.

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)

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by erentz

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.

Isn't that what we have city councils and mayors for?

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%.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by erentz

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.

Correct me if wrong, but I was on the understanding that ACC would not be privatised, but opened up to competition?

[erentz]

Originally Posted by Juju

Correct me if wrong, but I was on the understanding that ACC would not be privatised, but opened up to competition?

So what, the employer now chooses the insurer and you're stuck with it even if it's the crappiest outfit in town?

Gives a quick run down of the main points: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00226.htm

a 500+ page review by PricewaterhouseCoopers Sydney (PWC). PWC said that they had formed “a moderately strong view that a government monopoly is the best observable mechanism for implementing the ACC employers account”.

...

National Party: “The experience of competition in the late 1990s was healthy for ACC. Levy rates are now substantially lower as a result of that experience, and the ongoing prospect of competition.”

Response: The experience was not as rosy. When National last promoted so-called choice in accident compensation one of the providers, a subsidiary of HIH Insurance had up to 40 percent of workplace cover, yet HIH went into liquidation with losses of around $1 billion. Fortunately, the Government had by then changed ACC back to public provision. There was very little collation of any other data when the scheme was privatised in 1990 so National’s statement is speculation, not backed up by the experience of unions, that competition worked.

...

PricewaterhouseCoopers compared the current ACC scheme with other delivery models and they said based on available evidence, alternative scenarios (a mix of the systems in Australia, Canada and the US) would:

•have poorer rehabilitation and financial outcomes for the bulk of injury victims whose access is limited to the social welfare and health systems

•have poorer return-to-work outcomes and more variable financial outcomes for the small proportion of people in the fault-based insurance system.

National's ACC policy directly:
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28234

[xor]

Can't look good for Key's leadership

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labour-...l-policy-34961

[adonis]

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.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by erentz

have poorer return-to-work outcomes and more variable financial outcomes for the small proportion of people in the fault-based insurance system

How is this statement even plausibly relevant to what is currently in place, or proposed?

Basically, everything in your post is a misinterpretation (perhaps deliberate) of what has been written.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

How is this statement even plausibly relevant to what is currently in place, or proposed?

Basically, everything in your post is a misinterpretation (perhaps deliberate) of what has been written.

I think it comes down to the fact that a lot of people don't see how private insurance companies would be able to make money given the rules that National have proposed to manage competition. There must be a way for companies to turn a profit while still providing, at a minimum, the same service that the non-profit ACC provides. For people with limited knowledge this comes down to either:

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?

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Go take 3 years off, figure out what you're about, get some new blood with real convictions in there and represent the left like you're supposed to, fuckers.

Part of my reason for voting Greens; in theory at least they would hold the government to higher standards instead of being equally corrupt like Winston, or a nobody like Dunne.

[Haydos]

But they're focused on the WRONG issues, the Greens.

That's my issue with them.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Haydos

But they're focused on the WRONG issues, the Greens.

That's my issue with them.

such as?

[Haydos]

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.

[sidbo]

Originally Posted by Haydos

bug bear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugbear

[Fitz]

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.

[Ritalin]

Originally Posted by sidbo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugbear

"According to Webster's Dictionary, a bugbear is "an imaginary goblin or spectre used to excite fear", "an object or source of dread", or "a continuing source of irritation"."


?

[Haydos]

Originally Posted by sidbo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugbear

That's a definition of bugbear... there is more than one.

But nice to see you bought your trampoline with you.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Haydos

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.

Could you explain that? I thought most people would be all for more governmental transparancy.

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.

[Haydos]

@ 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?

[Redneck]

Originally Posted by Haydos

But nice to see you bought your trampoline with you.

Get used to this place - everyone gets minor nitpicks aimed at them.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by adonis

such as?

[SpaceCowboy]

Originally Posted by Haydos

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.

youre kidding, right? because you dont seem to have any clue about the greens at all. both of those are key policies of the green party.

[Haydos]

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.

[Hory]

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".

[SpaceCowboy]

do you get all of your info about everything from the internet?

[Haydos]

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)

Originally Posted by SpaceCowboy

do you get all of your info about everything from the internet?

Adversed to what? Give Jeanette Fitzsimmons a call?

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Ab

Gonna follow that up with a photoshopped picture of HC with a penis?

[Ab]

Don't be silly.

HC hates and fears penises

[Haydos]

Except Winston's.

[chubby]

^^ will you be expecting any level of detail on policy from the nats?

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by adonis

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?

Do you think it makes sense for us to sign up to something which will adversely affect our country, when we produce fuck all carbon compared to countries like China and India, both of which haven't signed up???
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