After that it will come back to Parliament, a vote will be had, it won't get the numbers, and it will be dead.
This is unusual as Governments normally put bills in they know they are going to pass.
Here is why it ties into Trump's victory last week:
Trump won because he is the repository for grievance. If you don’t like the left you vote for what's not the left, because you only have a choice of two.
Under MMP you have more choices. We have taken a lot of time to work that out, but as MMP matures we are reaching a place where more parties will establish themselves as ongoing contributors to the system, as opposed to being seen as fringe and on the verge of survival.
This Government will be especially helpful if it performs well as a group, gets re-elected and possibly goes for a third term, because it will show three parties can coalesce and agree to disagree, while remaining separate and independent.
The Greens have already arrived at this place. They are a permanent fixture on the landscape, and they don’t dabble with 5%.
The point here is, as a result, the big parties will shed support. The days of National being 45%-ish are gone because parties like ACT and New Zealand First look to head towards 10%, if not more.
The Treaty bill might well be ACT's ride to permanence.
The same way Trump hoovered up blacks and Hispanics who were sick of being treated like a block and not individuals, ACT could hoover up New Zealanders sick of race-based policy.
If National don’t, or won't deal to it, ACT can.
In an MMP environment Trump would not have stood a chance. But their system is less sophisticated than ours.
Choice is good. It gets over-represented in jurisdictions where the threshold is too low because you end up with single issue nutters. But at 5% it looks like we have picked it right because you can be small without being too fringe.
Hopefully ACT and New Zealand First break the MMP hoodoo where small parties vanish in Government because there are enough specific issues and enough electoral confidence for parties to stake clams and build support.
Big parties no longer have to be everything to everyone.
If this is an emerging trend, MMP will have properly arrived, and we will all be better off for it.
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.
Trump won because he is the repository for grievance. If you don’t like the left you vote for what's not the left, because you only have a choice of two.
Under MMP you have more choices. We have taken a lot of time to work that out, but as MMP matures we are reaching a place where more parties will establish themselves as ongoing contributors to the system, as opposed to being seen as fringe and on the verge of survival.
This Government will be especially helpful if it performs well as a group, gets re-elected and possibly goes for a third term, because it will show three parties can coalesce and agree to disagree, while remaining separate and independent.
The Greens have already arrived at this place. They are a permanent fixture on the landscape, and they don’t dabble with 5%.
The point here is, as a result, the big parties will shed support. The days of National being 45%-ish are gone because parties like ACT and New Zealand First look to head towards 10%, if not more.
The Treaty bill might well be ACT's ride to permanence.
The same way Trump hoovered up blacks and Hispanics who were sick of being treated like a block and not individuals, ACT could hoover up New Zealanders sick of race-based policy.
If National don’t, or won't deal to it, ACT can.
In an MMP environment Trump would not have stood a chance. But their system is less sophisticated than ours.
Choice is good. It gets over-represented in jurisdictions where the threshold is too low because you end up with single issue nutters. But at 5% it looks like we have picked it right because you can be small without being too fringe.
Hopefully ACT and New Zealand First break the MMP hoodoo where small parties vanish in Government because there are enough specific issues and enough electoral confidence for parties to stake clams and build support.
Big parties no longer have to be everything to everyone.
If this is an emerging trend, MMP will have properly arrived, and we will all be better off for it.
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.
2 comments:
Our parties in Parliament are a good reflection of the Intelligence bell curve. Everything to the right of the average point is ACT/NZF/National. Everything to the left is Labour/Greens/TPM. We can accommodate everyone.
Mike, I would have to disagree on MMP "maturing" into something useful.
Yes, as one of many options to encourage diversity in Parliament, it has been successful...but at an unnecessary cost.
Our Westminster form of democracy depends upon upholding the sense of "representative democracy" ie the people you and I elect to study the issues and vote on measures to improve things.(we could argue that modern technology permits a system of more direct democracy..ie individuals casting their own votes on issues of the moment...but that may well be a better system for issues of broad concern and importance, but our Parliamentary representatives have to spend long hours debating and investigating major amounts of mundane legislation often complex. I rather think the average Kiwi would soon lose interest.)
So, given we elect representatives to work on our behalf I believe it is essential that every elected MP represents a constituency where he owes his/her selection to local people who an hold their MP to account, not to mention that the MP should be readily available to constituents.
This is where MMP scores so poorly. Unbelievably in our haste to get out of First Past the Post electoral system which lent power to the major political parties, we favoured MMP which gives huge power to all political parties, reducing the number of electorates, now of much bigger physical size and where it is difficult to know who represents you, and where the Party has increased power over candidate selection and retention. We have seen the end of candidates standing successfully as independents. It is now highly unlikely that even a constituency MP will side with local concerns, ie become a maverick MP like Quigley or Mike MInogue.
In other words MMP has caused the citizens to have less authority of who they choose to send to Wellington. Our present MP's tend to promote a Wellington view to the citizens rather than taking their constituents' view to Wellington.
I perhaps overstate the problem but looking worldwide it seems citizens are rejecting their party selected "representatives" living the life of Riley in the capital city surrounded by huge numbers if state-paid "experts" who live in an academic bubble of their own.
Post a Comment