So it begins...

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › So it begins...

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 30

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1958834 15-Feb-2018 22:35

networkn:

The complaints of cronyism blah blah are old and tired cliches.

No they aren't.

Fundamentally, the National Party panders to business interests, Labour to unions. It may be muddied by history over the past few decades and not entirely accurate, but it's real rather than a mere cliche.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958836 15-Feb-2018 22:42

Fred99:

networkn:

The complaints of cronyism blah blah are old and tired cliches.

No they aren't.

Fundamentally, the National Party panders to business interests, Labour to unions. It may be muddied by history over the past few decades and not entirely accurate, but it's real rather than a mere cliche.

Cronyism: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

Does anyone have recent (last 9 Years) a concrete example of National doing this?

Note that giving someone you have an association with business, because you feel they can do a great job doesn't meet that threshold. Happens all day every day in Business.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1958840 15-Feb-2018 23:09

networkn:

Cronyism: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

An opposition leader doesn't have any "authority" - except over party members who are voluntarily subservient.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1958855 16-Feb-2018 06:53

Fred99:
networkn:

The complaints of cronyism blah blah are old and tired cliches.

No they aren't.

Fundamentally, the National Party panders to business interests, Labour to unions. It may be muddied by history over the past few decades and not entirely accurate, but it's real rather than a mere cliche.

Well that's hardly news... Labour is the political party of the unions, they are intrinsically tied together. On the other hand, while National favor business friendly policies, their party 'rules' or 'processes' don't require them to consult any body or outside forum etc. At the end of the day it's the caucus vote.

Of course, if a business person is a member of the party they could certainly try to exert their influence or opinion on caucus members. But they don't have a vote at the end of the day.

I guess the reason it was brought up was because of the botch-up the unions made in choosing Andrew Little. A union man to the back teeth, so the unions would have been rubbing their hands together, unfortunately a hopeless leader. So it's a good thing National is free from their influence.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1958948 16-Feb-2018 09:47

And National is not subject to self-serving business interests? I honestly don't see much difference in principle between the two.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958956 16-Feb-2018 09:59

Rikkitic:

And National is not subject to self-serving business interests? I honestly don't see much difference in principle between the two.

They are not required to consult outside interests in the election of a leader. That is a significant difference.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958987 16-Feb-2018 10:11

networkn:

Rikkitic:

And National is not subject to self-serving business interests? I honestly don't see much difference in principle between the two.

They are not required to consult outside interests in the election of a leader. That is a significant difference.

I would doubt that Labours official leadership selection protocol requires the official acceptance of the unions.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958989 16-Feb-2018 10:13

tdgeek:

networkn:

Rikkitic:

And National is not subject to self-serving business interests? I honestly don't see much difference in principle between the two.

They are not required to consult outside interests in the election of a leader. That is a significant difference.

I would doubt that Labours official leadership selection protocol requires the official acceptance of the unions.

That is incorrect. They cannot elect a new leader permamently without the unions approval. Which accounts for a specific % of the total vote count.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958997 16-Feb-2018 10:23

networkn:

tdgeek:

networkn:

Rikkitic:

And National is not subject to self-serving business interests? I honestly don't see much difference in principle between the two.

They are not required to consult outside interests in the election of a leader. That is a significant difference.

I would doubt that Labours official leadership selection protocol requires the official acceptance of the unions.

That is incorrect. They cannot elect a new leader permamently without the unions approval. Which accounts for a specific % of the total vote count.

They have a say, 20% of votes, thats not a requirement to accept or decline a leader.

JA was elected solely by the caucus as it was close to the election, but Unions just have a say.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1959000 16-Feb-2018 10:29

I often see things here that make me wonder about the influence of business interests. This is purely anecdotal. I haven't researched anything. I am just saying it makes me wonder.

We seem to be far behind comparable countries when it comes to most forms of recycling. In Europe, sellers of batteries have for years also been required to collect old ones so they don't go into landfills. I believe similar measures exist for electronic goods. Drinks containers have fees added to them to encourage their return, which supermarkets are also obliged to accept. I'm not certain about plastic bags but I would imagine they have probably been banned for years.

These are just a few small examples, but they indicate a pattern to me. Although plastic bags are now in the spotlight here, none of these other things are as far as I know, yet they have been standard practice abroad for years. I don't know why New Zealand is so lax in this kind of thing, but I suspect it has to do with business interests whining about the increased costs such measures would impose on them. Or is there another explanation?

Business interests are by far the biggest donators to right-leaning political parties. They do this for a reason. There is nothing wrong with it in itself, but I imagine they expect something in return. Just as the unions expect something from Labour. I still don't see a huge difference in principle here, except possibly that the unions represent the interests of people rather than companies.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959003 16-Feb-2018 10:34

tdgeek:

They have a say, 20% of votes, thats not a requirement to accept or decline a leader.

JA was elected solely by the caucus as it was close to the election, but Unions just have a say.

I can't find the article, but I am certain that is incorrect. Her acceptance of leader, was *conditional* upon the final results of the union vote. She could not be leader without this. She can be a provisionary leader. This is what she was over the election campaign. Labour had been told that the Unions didn't specifically oppose her as leader but it was a requirement for her to confirm her plans didn't breach the union goals. Had she of come out saying she was going to lessen the unions power, it's likely a leadership rejection would have occurred.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959011 16-Feb-2018 10:57

networkn:

tdgeek:

They have a say, 20% of votes, thats not a requirement to accept or decline a leader.

JA was elected solely by the caucus as it was close to the election, but Unions just have a say.

I can't find the article, but I am certain that is incorrect. Her acceptance of leader, was *conditional* upon the final results of the union vote. She could not be leader without this. She can be a provisionary leader. This is what she was over the election campaign. Labour had been told that the Unions didn't specifically oppose her as leader but it was a requirement for her to confirm her plans didn't breach the union goals. Had she of come out saying she was going to lessen the unions power, it's likely a leadership rejection would have occurred.

I did a google and never saw that I just saw the 20% vote they have, MP's have 40%, cant recall the other. Party members I think it was

Unions are an organisation, so as they are closely aligned it makes sense to have a say, so they have a small say. On the National side, businesses and National are also joined at the hip, but there is no business "movement" so to speak. But they certainly do have a big influence you can guarantee that, but you wont read about it in the daily news

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959015 16-Feb-2018 11:00

Rikkitic:

I often see things here that make me wonder about the influence of business interests. This is purely anecdotal. I haven't researched anything. I am just saying it makes me wonder.

We seem to be far behind comparable countries when it comes to most forms of recycling. In Europe, sellers of batteries have for years also been required to collect old ones so they don't go into landfills. I believe similar measures exist for electronic goods. Drinks containers have fees added to them to encourage their return, which supermarkets are also obliged to accept. I'm not certain about plastic bags but I would imagine they have probably been banned for years.

These are just a few small examples, but they indicate a pattern to me. Although plastic bags are now in the spotlight here, none of these other things are as far as I know, yet they have been standard practice abroad for years. I don't know why New Zealand is so lax in this kind of thing, but I suspect it has to do with business interests whining about the increased costs such measures would impose on them. Or is there another explanation?

Business interests are by far the biggest donators to right-leaning political parties. They do this for a reason. There is nothing wrong with it in itself, but I imagine they expect something in return. Just as the unions expect something from Labour. I still don't see a huge difference in principle here, except possibly that the unions represent the interests of people rather than companies.

Good summary, there is no difference apart from Unions being an official organisation, so thats more transparent than deals behind closed doors. However, unions are yesterdays news thanks to the Employment Contracts Act. The left is more centre than its ever been, the right the same.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959016 16-Feb-2018 11:01

tdgeek:

I did a google and never saw that I just saw the 20% vote they have, MP's have 40%, cant recall the other. Party members I think it was

Unions are an organisation, so as they are closely aligned it makes sense to have a say, so they have a small say. On the National side, businesses and National are also joined at the hip, but there is no business "movement" so to speak. But they certainly do have a big influence you can guarantee that, but you wont read about it in the daily news

I don't agree with your assessment, however the fact remains that a leader can not be a leader of the Labour party without the unions. Even if it's 20% that is far more than "a little say". If I cut your pay by 20% for example, or increased your rent, I don't think you'd say you had a little pay cut :-)

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1959017 16-Feb-2018 11:02

networkn:

tdgeek:

They have a say, 20% of votes, thats not a requirement to accept or decline a leader.

JA was elected solely by the caucus as it was close to the election, but Unions just have a say.

I can't find the article, but I am certain that is incorrect. Her acceptance of leader, was *conditional* upon the final results of the union vote. She could not be leader without this. She can be a provisionary leader. This is what she was over the election campaign. Labour had been told that the Unions didn't specifically oppose her as leader but it was a requirement for her to confirm her plans didn't breach the union goals. Had she of come out saying she was going to lessen the unions power, it's likely a leadership rejection would have occurred.

In fact, the Labour Party constitution allows for the Caucus to appoint a new Leader (without requiring the usual vote of Caucus, Membership and Unions) in the period 3 months prior to a general election. This is how JA was made leader when Little resigned.

Usual process

9.12.1 The election of the Leader of the Labour Party must be determined by the votes cast in an

electoral college composed of the following:

(a) Parliamentary Labour Party Caucus (40% of the total vote):

(b) Party members (40% of the total vote):

(c) Affiliate Party members (20% of the total vote). <- Unions

Exception

B12 Should a vacancy in the leadership occur in the 3 months prior to the announced date of

a general election (where known) or in the absence of an announced date the statutory

date (calculated according to the date on which the election is triggered or, in the case of

a caucus vote, a meeting or special meeting is requested), a new Leader will be elected

by Caucus majority vote. The new Leader will then be subject to confirmation within

three months after the election, pursuant to the Party constitution (i.e. they would need

to be endorsed by 60%+1 of the new Caucus, or a full leadership contest would be

triggered).

No union endorsement required.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 30