Reading the ladder, this seems more like step 6 than 5. Maybe more like 5.5; but
The Commissioner gives the policy institutional backbone – ensuring continuity across electoral cycles and demanding Government engages seriously with Citizens’ recommendations.
The key for me here is “across electoral cycles”. The left-right swings are a real problem here in NZ; long term systemic issues are not getting solved effectively.
It is obviously not, citizens forcing the government to do their bidding. But this is a major step in the right direction, if this party gets into power next year and manages to implement this policy.
@absGeekNZ@TechnoCat, two BIG ifs,
why bother when we have the Greens already (let’s face it they have all the tics about most Kiwis concerns- environment, equality, health care, etc, etc.
They have more foresight, political understanding, new ideas than the destructive coalition has mustered so far) if people ( looking at boomers) would only be more courageous or idealistic ( like they were in the 1960 s
and following decade).
Because the Greens are very much the same as ACT. Both are idealistically driven; both have welded themselves to the major party on their right/left side; both will ignore evidence to push their agenda.
One major problem I see in NZ politics is that we don’t have a party that will sit on the cross bench and support good ideas; independent of the source of the idea. We seem to have drifted back toward FPTP, but with extra steps.
TPM was good at being on the cross bench but seems to have taken a bit of a step back in this regard, lately.
Edit: I don’t think the current government has had many good ideas at all. But that doesn’t change the need for a cross bench party.
Why do you think randomly selected citizens who are willing to join such a thing would have a different political ideology than the citizens who vote for these parties?
@absGeekNZ, that very first sentence is sooo wrong.
Splitting and dividing can be seen as favoring FPTP because that’s what it’ll in effect create again.
(It lowers the threshold for the bigger parties to get in, even if it means holding hands with the devil - as in present coalition).
It’s not wrong, in the current political climate. A Lab/ACT or Nat/Grn coalition is extremely unlikely.
What fee currently have is very FPTP like.
Without parties that will work both sides; MMP seems to devolve into FPTP. TPM did in the past, but also refuse to work with ACT (for good reason); but it limits options for progress.
Reading the ladder, this seems more like step 6 than 5. Maybe more like 5.5; but
The key for me here is “across electoral cycles”. The left-right swings are a real problem here in NZ; long term systemic issues are not getting solved effectively.
It is obviously not, citizens forcing the government to do their bidding. But this is a major step in the right direction, if this party gets into power next year and manages to implement this policy.
@absGeekNZ @TechnoCat, two BIG ifs,
why bother when we have the Greens already (let’s face it they have all the tics about most Kiwis concerns- environment, equality, health care, etc, etc.
They have more foresight, political understanding, new ideas than the destructive coalition has mustered so far) if people ( looking at boomers) would only be more courageous or idealistic ( like they were in the 1960 s
and following decade).
Because the Greens are very much the same as ACT. Both are idealistically driven; both have welded themselves to the major party on their right/left side; both will ignore evidence to push their agenda.
One major problem I see in NZ politics is that we don’t have a party that will sit on the cross bench and support good ideas; independent of the source of the idea. We seem to have drifted back toward FPTP, but with extra steps.
TPM was good at being on the cross bench but seems to have taken a bit of a step back in this regard, lately.
Edit: I don’t think the current government has had many good ideas at all. But that doesn’t change the need for a cross bench party.
Why do you think randomly selected citizens who are willing to join such a thing would have a different political ideology than the citizens who vote for these parties?
@absGeekNZ, that very first sentence is sooo wrong.
Splitting and dividing can be seen as favoring FPTP because that’s what it’ll in effect create again.
(It lowers the threshold for the bigger parties to get in, even if it means holding hands with the devil - as in present coalition).
It’s not wrong, in the current political climate. A Lab/ACT or Nat/Grn coalition is extremely unlikely.
What fee currently have is very FPTP like.
Without parties that will work both sides; MMP seems to devolve into FPTP. TPM did in the past, but also refuse to work with ACT (for good reason); but it limits options for progress.