The suggestion from the Prime Minister is we could be asked whether we want a 4-year term.
Do we? Now, there is a debate.
Firstly we need to work out whether the Prime Minister is actually going to deliver it or whether in a Q & A session last week in front of businesses he was merely musing.
So is there a vote in 2026 or not? And if there is, if there is change voted for, when is the first 4-year term?
Could I suggest if we are having a vote, we vote for the status quo, a 4-year term or a 5-year term? If you are going to the people why not explore the options?
Assuming there is a vote, which way would you go?
Personally I know my answer. And the answer is, I don’t have an answer.
This is one of those areas where there is no right or wrong. Both can work, both can fail.
It's an MMP type debate. There are failings in MMP - list MP's like Darleen Tana surely are arguments for First Past the Post.
The slapdash, amateurish nature of so much of the political scene these days, perpetrated by radicals and single-issue crazies, is a good argument for First Past the Post.
But MMP has given us diversity in gender and race and age. It is a spectacularly diverse parliament and you would argue MMP is what gave us that.
Anyway, off the back of the Labour Government 2017-23, and particularly 2020-23, surely the shorter the better is the answer?
Imagine if they had carried on their carnage this year, given their term would have been 2020-24.
How could you possibly vote for more of that?
But good Government, and this current combination might just prove to be an example of that, would need and want as much time as possible to right the ship and get us back to some sort of semblance of what we once were.
Either way you can see good and not so good.
That’s what makes this one, one of your better debates.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
So is there a vote in 2026 or not? And if there is, if there is change voted for, when is the first 4-year term?
Could I suggest if we are having a vote, we vote for the status quo, a 4-year term or a 5-year term? If you are going to the people why not explore the options?
Assuming there is a vote, which way would you go?
Personally I know my answer. And the answer is, I don’t have an answer.
This is one of those areas where there is no right or wrong. Both can work, both can fail.
It's an MMP type debate. There are failings in MMP - list MP's like Darleen Tana surely are arguments for First Past the Post.
The slapdash, amateurish nature of so much of the political scene these days, perpetrated by radicals and single-issue crazies, is a good argument for First Past the Post.
But MMP has given us diversity in gender and race and age. It is a spectacularly diverse parliament and you would argue MMP is what gave us that.
Anyway, off the back of the Labour Government 2017-23, and particularly 2020-23, surely the shorter the better is the answer?
Imagine if they had carried on their carnage this year, given their term would have been 2020-24.
How could you possibly vote for more of that?
But good Government, and this current combination might just prove to be an example of that, would need and want as much time as possible to right the ship and get us back to some sort of semblance of what we once were.
Either way you can see good and not so good.
That’s what makes this one, one of your better debates.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
You are missing the elephant in the room completely Mike. All systems, like their human components, have a life cycle. Our Parliamentary system is in its elderly and decaying-rapidly phase. We need to find an alternative PDQ. Perhaps something like the Athenian system, but with careful filtering processes and strict time limitations. I’m sure the academics could design just what we need!
YES .A referendum to be undertaken. Give us 4 matters to decide .
Waitangi Tribunal , Parliamentary Term . Coal fired electricity or Small Nuclear power station. Further spending on Climate Change YES /NO on them separately
Or might the 4 year term simply be a distraction ... an allusion to democracy ... to avoid the elephant in the room ... the treaty.
A bit like Mr Luxon's mentor when he became the no smacking champion, thus avoiding more pressing questions.
We only have democaracy one day every 3 years. Why make it one day every 4 years. There are quite simply insufficient safeguards to even consider this.
I used to be in favour of longer terms but the thought of the last Government having an extra year or two gives me the shivers.
More importantly than most of the above - Maori seats YES/NO
Government is and always has been a control system of covert rulership / covert slavery. It is the operational arm of our controllers/owners to dictate commands that must be obeyed which are always followed by threats of violence if not complied with. Believe and obey, or be punished.
Kingship of the ancient past is the “Old World Order,” or “authority vested in one.” What we have today called “government” is the “New World Order,” or “authority vested in a few.”
Ultimately, nothing has really changed between those two periods of time. It’s still rulership – we’ve just euphemized it differently – therefore it’s still slavery. You cannot have morally legitimate government because you cannot have morally legitimate slavery.
What about democracy? A democracy is a system of rule by a majority, that 51% of a population gets to declare what is or isn’t Right/Moral while the remaining 49% must abide by those decrees. It’s the same immoral “logic” as any other form of rulership. A majority cannot legitimately rule any more than a single person can legitimately rule, nor can they decide for themselves what Morality is or what Rights are. The individual rules himself/herself, period, under the Laws of Nature.
I would "support the concept of a 4 year Parliamentary Term, as along as -
[1] - the Act depicting this has a stipulated clause that pre- sets the General Election as being - the last week of September (NOT being the prerogative of the then PM) - that the Govt of the day (at that time), then becomes the " Caretaker of Office Administration - only" - until the New Govt is declared.
[2] - that ALL electoral results must be concluded within 2 weeks of General Election,- this is to ensure that "re counts are conducted with efficiency & speed, not take weeks"
[3] - the New Govt is sworn in by the 20th of October.
[4] - in relation to above [3] - that any Coalition Agreements (between leading Party & supporting Parties) - "are done & dusted by this date" (which would curtail the Winston Peters 3 months to decide a deal) - NO DEAL - a second General Election
( which said Act will have a Clause dictating same) - will be effected "immediately".
Next, that "said ACT", will also have a clause that states -
"That all Elected Political Persons, holding a Ministerial Post or being The Representative of an Electorate, will be advised that they will be held accountable by the Electorate, irrespective of which Political Party they represent".
In "simple terms"- stuff up, the People, of the Electorate concerned, will have an immediate effect on that MP.
Want change - then "Let The People Speak".
Based on recent governments, a 2-year term is sounding more attractive
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.