His main point is that MMP fails to serve NZ’s majority. Most of us would agree. MMP was intended to provide for the representation of wider interests in parliament, in a ratio proportional to the makeup of the general population. As laudable as that may seem, we have now reached a point where that ratio is out of line with the makeup of the population and the advocacy of fringe interests risks outweighs the needs of the mainstream.
This is already happening. The coalition Government has failed, mainly through the wokeness and weakness in the hierarchy of the National Party, to firmly put a lid on co-governance. It is still creeping into our lives through people acting without the required consultation. Tauranga City Council is one example.
Cotterill says it is important to cater for and support the needs of those on the edges of our society. However, such support should not come at the expense of the needs of the majority. That is where our MMP system has delivered a parliament that is ‘out of whack’ with the needs of the country.
The article refers to the history of the two main parties; National and Labour with National regarded as a better economic manager and Labour identifying more with the working classes.
Cotterill says those respective positions have served the country well as we recovered from two world wars and a depression. But, as he points out, times have changed: people are more vocal, have the means to broadcast their views, and those who shout the loudest are not those who occupy the political centre. Rather, they are those on the fringes: the minorities.
It has become increasingly necessary for the centrist parties to garner the support of the fringes and therefore they have been forced to adopt positions on matters incidental to their main priorities.
The evidence is becoming obvious. National is the weak link with both ACT and NZ First taking a far more assertive stance to the fringe parties in parliament.
With reference to our poor economic statistics with problems with health, education, crime, justice and housing Cotterill points out that these are not the issues the minority champions but are issues that impact the majority of New Zealanders. And yet we are constantly distracted by the needs of, or deeds of, those who represent minorities. His great fear for New Zealand is not a Labour-led Government; it is what would become of that government if it is disproportionately influenced by the agenda and antics of its obvious left-wing partners.
Referring to Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, the former have become increasingly extremist and separatist while the Greens have abandoned their environmental agenda to pursue a wide range of global issues, including Palestine, gender rights and refugee support. The latest twist has seen both parties move away from what we have come to expect as normal standards and behaviours.
Putting MMP to one side, most of the nonsense by these political parties might well have been avoided if firstly, the Speaker were to take a much tougher line with these two outliers and secondly, if National and NZ First had supported a referendum on Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
I don’t believe NZ First is too squeamish to support a referendum: I think Winston is up to his old tricks and his opposition is born out of a personal dislike for Seymour.
Cotterill notes Te Pāti Māori and the Greens hold 20 seats in the nation’s parliament and asks if it’s true more than 16 per cent of voters support their current antics.
He points out that the great majority grew from centrist roots. They go to work every day, get their kids to school and help with their homework. They’ll make sure everyone is well fed and appropriately sheltered. They are interested in education, health, crime and housing.
These people form the majority and are the people parliament’s main efforts should be directed at.
“But the declining calibre of our MPs, the outlying agendas and the evaporation of standards mean we are sidetracked at every turn.”
Absolutely right. We've heard Winston Peters, Shane Jones and David Seymour speak to these sorts of things but, again, where is Christopher Luxon? Where is the National Party? Crickets!
I take no pleasure criticising National but, like many people on this site, I am left with few options. They are letting us down on basic domestic issues through either fear or avoidance. They appear blind to the fact that this will most likely cost them votes at the next election. They certainly won't have mine.
MMP has diluted the quality of our representation in a troubled time when we need the best leaders more than ever before: People with skills and the ability to get things done.
Cotterill is right in concluding that MMP has had the opposite impact to that intended: It has delivered a disproportionate representation of minorities and an under-representation of the majority.
Is there a solution? Should reduce the number of MPs from 123 to 90: 60 electorate MPs and 30 from party lists. And maybe consider an age limit to enter parliament so MPs have a working life before entering politics. Cotterill also wonders about limiting MPs to a maximum of three or four terms: a term to listen and learn and a couple of terms to contribute and lead. That would ensure we avoid the succession of ‘lifers’ making minimum contributions for prolonged periods, while refreshing the ideas.
Andrew Barnes said that “Parliament should be where you go to give back after you’ve had a successful career.”
That's something for today's disparate mob in parliament to think about.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
Cotterill says it is important to cater for and support the needs of those on the edges of our society. However, such support should not come at the expense of the needs of the majority. That is where our MMP system has delivered a parliament that is ‘out of whack’ with the needs of the country.
The article refers to the history of the two main parties; National and Labour with National regarded as a better economic manager and Labour identifying more with the working classes.
Cotterill says those respective positions have served the country well as we recovered from two world wars and a depression. But, as he points out, times have changed: people are more vocal, have the means to broadcast their views, and those who shout the loudest are not those who occupy the political centre. Rather, they are those on the fringes: the minorities.
It has become increasingly necessary for the centrist parties to garner the support of the fringes and therefore they have been forced to adopt positions on matters incidental to their main priorities.
The evidence is becoming obvious. National is the weak link with both ACT and NZ First taking a far more assertive stance to the fringe parties in parliament.
With reference to our poor economic statistics with problems with health, education, crime, justice and housing Cotterill points out that these are not the issues the minority champions but are issues that impact the majority of New Zealanders. And yet we are constantly distracted by the needs of, or deeds of, those who represent minorities. His great fear for New Zealand is not a Labour-led Government; it is what would become of that government if it is disproportionately influenced by the agenda and antics of its obvious left-wing partners.
Referring to Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, the former have become increasingly extremist and separatist while the Greens have abandoned their environmental agenda to pursue a wide range of global issues, including Palestine, gender rights and refugee support. The latest twist has seen both parties move away from what we have come to expect as normal standards and behaviours.
Putting MMP to one side, most of the nonsense by these political parties might well have been avoided if firstly, the Speaker were to take a much tougher line with these two outliers and secondly, if National and NZ First had supported a referendum on Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
I don’t believe NZ First is too squeamish to support a referendum: I think Winston is up to his old tricks and his opposition is born out of a personal dislike for Seymour.
Cotterill notes Te Pāti Māori and the Greens hold 20 seats in the nation’s parliament and asks if it’s true more than 16 per cent of voters support their current antics.
He points out that the great majority grew from centrist roots. They go to work every day, get their kids to school and help with their homework. They’ll make sure everyone is well fed and appropriately sheltered. They are interested in education, health, crime and housing.
These people form the majority and are the people parliament’s main efforts should be directed at.
“But the declining calibre of our MPs, the outlying agendas and the evaporation of standards mean we are sidetracked at every turn.”
Absolutely right. We've heard Winston Peters, Shane Jones and David Seymour speak to these sorts of things but, again, where is Christopher Luxon? Where is the National Party? Crickets!
I take no pleasure criticising National but, like many people on this site, I am left with few options. They are letting us down on basic domestic issues through either fear or avoidance. They appear blind to the fact that this will most likely cost them votes at the next election. They certainly won't have mine.
MMP has diluted the quality of our representation in a troubled time when we need the best leaders more than ever before: People with skills and the ability to get things done.
Cotterill is right in concluding that MMP has had the opposite impact to that intended: It has delivered a disproportionate representation of minorities and an under-representation of the majority.
Is there a solution? Should reduce the number of MPs from 123 to 90: 60 electorate MPs and 30 from party lists. And maybe consider an age limit to enter parliament so MPs have a working life before entering politics. Cotterill also wonders about limiting MPs to a maximum of three or four terms: a term to listen and learn and a couple of terms to contribute and lead. That would ensure we avoid the succession of ‘lifers’ making minimum contributions for prolonged periods, while refreshing the ideas.
Andrew Barnes said that “Parliament should be where you go to give back after you’ve had a successful career.”
That's something for today's disparate mob in parliament to think about.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment