Shameful politics, shameless politicians

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

Forums › Politics › Shameful politics, shameless politicians

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1721124 16-Feb-2017 11:47

Rikkitic:

SaltyNZ:

MikeB4:

Every politician has influence outside their constituency........ it's called Parliament.

I believe what @Rikkitic is getting at is that his influence is disproportionate. If the locals really want Peter Dunne personally then it wouldn't matter if he joined the National Party. If he joined the National Party, he'd be a back bencher. But because he has his own political party, National give him the proverbial baubles in order to secure his vote.

Therefore, he is only in Parliament because of very local popularity (if it were not so, his party vote would be bigger, yes?) but his influence far exceeds the influence of any other local MP. Although it is not unfair in the sense that no rules have been broken, it certainly breaks the spirit of MMP in the sense that the opinions of those living in one single electorate disproportionately overrule every other, thanks merely to a technicality.

THANK YOU!

Thanking it does not make it right

Again Every politician has influence outside their constituency........ it's called Parliament.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1721180 16-Feb-2017 12:35

Reading this topic leads me to think that "Shameless voters" should be added to the title. I have similar thoughts about Peter Dunne, United Future, MMP, etc. There are so many examples of our thinking which appear to be just as "shameful" as the politicians' thinking.

But what is more concerning to me is that some points are based on rules of thumb, adages, etc. that don't start with analysing the current situation and choosing the best option. Here's one example:

MikeB4: three terms is enough for a government

If might be true that the best option is not to have a National-led coalition in government but I wouldn't rely on a personal axiom that "three terms is enough".

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1721236 16-Feb-2017 13:20

Hammerer:

Reading this topic leads me to think that "Shameless voters" should be added to the title. I have similar thoughts about Peter Dunne, United Future, MMP, etc. There are so many examples of our thinking which appear to be just as "shameful" as the politicians' thinking.

But what is more concerning to me is that some points are based on rules of thumb, adages, etc. that don't start with analysing the current situation and choosing the best option. Here's one example:

MikeB4: three terms is enough for a government

If might be true that the best option is not to have a National-led coalition in government but I wouldn't rely on a personal axiom that "three terms is enough".

The voters get to decide that anyway. If sufficient voters think three terms is enough and vote accordingly, there will be a change of govt.

Mike

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1721278 16-Feb-2017 14:16

MikeAqua:

Hammerer:

Reading this topic leads me to think that "Shameless voters" should be added to the title. I have similar thoughts about Peter Dunne, United Future, MMP, etc. There are so many examples of our thinking which appear to be just as "shameful" as the politicians' thinking.

But what is more concerning to me is that some points are based on rules of thumb, adages, etc. that don't start with analysing the current situation and choosing the best option. Here's one example:

MikeB4: three terms is enough for a government

If might be true that the best option is not to have a National-led coalition in government but I wouldn't rely on a personal axiom that "three terms is enough".

The voters get to decide that anyway. If sufficient voters think three terms is enough and vote accordingly, there will be a change of govt.

I sure as heck do not want to see a legislative restriction place on how many consecutive terms a government can do, that is not how democracy works. I just feel that after a three term period a refresh is needed but that has a caveat, if the alternative is god awful then please noooooooo. Currently I don't think the alternative is god awful.

When it comes to how long a party or an individual can stay that is down to the electorate to decide.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#1721647 17-Feb-2017 06:52

MikeB4:

MikeAqua:

Hammerer:

Reading this topic leads me to think that "Shameless voters" should be added to the title. I have similar thoughts about Peter Dunne, United Future, MMP, etc. There are so many examples of our thinking which appear to be just as "shameful" as the politicians' thinking.

But what is more concerning to me is that some points are based on rules of thumb, adages, etc. that don't start with analysing the current situation and choosing the best option. Here's one example:

MikeB4: three terms is enough for a government

If might be true that the best option is not to have a National-led coalition in government but I wouldn't rely on a personal axiom that "three terms is enough".

The voters get to decide that anyway. If sufficient voters think three terms is enough and vote accordingly, there will be a change of govt.

I sure as heck do not want to see a legislative restriction place on how many consecutive terms a government can do, that is not how democracy works. I just feel that after a three term period a refresh is needed but that has a caveat, if the alternative is god awful then please noooooooo. Currently I don't think the alternative is god awful.

When it comes to how long a party or an individual can stay that is down to the electorate to decide.

The government needs replacing when either its policies don't work, are irrelevant or there is a better option. The thought that 3 terms is long enough is dangerous, or even, hey lets give the other guy a go. Labour has yet to stand a candidate for PM that is remotely reasonable or that actually represents the working class.

Also more shameful is Winston Peters who pipes up when an election is near or he can get his name in the papers, doesn't commit to a stance until it benefits him personally and can flitter between left and right even though his views are right wing.

Dunne may do the same and that too is shameful, but until he is voted out democracy is working.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1721865 17-Feb-2017 15:07

Rikkitic:
SaltyNZ:

MikeB4:

Every politician has influence outside their constituency........ it's called Parliament.

I believe what @Rikkitic is getting at is that his influence is disproportionate. If the locals really want Peter Dunne personally then it wouldn't matter if he joined the National Party. If he joined the National Party, he'd be a back bencher. But because he has his own political party, National give him the proverbial baubles in order to secure his vote.

Therefore, he is only in Parliament because of very local popularity (if it were not so, his party vote would be bigger, yes?) but his influence far exceeds the influence of any other local MP. Although it is not unfair in the sense that no rules have been broken, it certainly breaks the spirit of MMP in the sense that the opinions of those living in one single electorate disproportionately overrule every other, thanks merely to a technicality.

THANK YOU!

One again (unless you wish to assassinate Peter Dunne) it appears that you object to the provisions in law that provide for this scenario. At least now you have a sensible question to ask of your preferred candidate. I assume if your preferred candidate or party does not support the change as you do, then you will select another candidate or party.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1721883 17-Feb-2017 15:28

gzt:

One again (unless you wish to assassinate Peter Dunne) it appears that you object to the provisions in law that provide for this scenario. At least now you have a sensible question to ask of your preferred candidate. I assume if your preferred candidate or party does not support the change as you do, then you will select another candidate or party.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I object to comments, even in jest, about assassinating politicians or anyone else. I said nothing to suggest such a thing and I do not want any such inference being made.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1721907 17-Feb-2017 16:18

Rikkitic:

gzt:

One again (unless you wish to assassinate Peter Dunne) it appears that you object to the provisions in law that provide for this scenario. At least now you have a sensible question to ask of your preferred candidate. I assume if your preferred candidate or party does not support the change as you do, then you will select another candidate or party.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I object to comments, even in jest, about assassinating politicians or anyone else. I said nothing to suggest such a thing and I do not want any such inference being made.

You are calling them shameless...

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1721926 17-Feb-2017 16:26

What does that have to do with it? Either make your point or go somewhere else.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1721992 17-Feb-2017 19:51

Rikkitic:
gzt:

One again (unless you wish to assassinate Peter Dunne) it appears that you object to the provisions in law that provide for this scenario. At least now you have a sensible question to ask of your preferred candidate. I assume if your preferred candidate or party does not support the change as you do, then you will select another candidate or party.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I object to comments, even in jest, about assassinating politicians or anyone else. I said nothing to suggest such a thing and I do not want any such inference being made.

Yep. Very bad choice on my part. I apologise for that. You have said nothing like that. Here's the thing: it seems you object way more to Peter Dunne than the electoral provisions which is he is subject to.

You really need to ask your preferred candidate or party about those provisions.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1722002 17-Feb-2017 20:50

gzt:

Yep. Very bad choice on my part. I apologise for that. You have said nothing like that. Here's the thing: it seems you object way more to Peter Dunne than the electoral provisions which is he is subject to.

You really need to ask your preferred candidate or party about those provisions.

Thanks for clarifying. We all make bad word choices sometimes.

The reason why I thanked SaltyNZ for his post was that I felt he actually understood what I was trying to say (maybe the first poster who did) and he did a better job of explaining it than I had been able to do. Anyone who wants to understand my points should just read his post. I think our MMP system is flawed and should be replaced, but if not that, at least fixed. I think politicians like Peter Dunne (but not only him) exploit and abuse these flaws and I object to that. I think there ought to be a limit on the number of terms a politician can serve. This will not prevent good people from contributing, because good people will always find other ways to do so. There are a lot of other changes I would also like to see, but these are a good place to start.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1722010 17-Feb-2017 21:19

There's no way I'm going back to FPP. The country swung around like a demented yoyo toy.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1722013 17-Feb-2017 21:21

I'm unsure if the stability of our MMP system is down to the parameters we selected for MMP or that we just got lucky with the quality of our politicians. Probably a bit of both.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1722043 17-Feb-2017 21:54

My own preference is for STV. In my perfect world political parties wouldn't exist at all. There would always be political groups and clubs, of course, but they wouldn't have any legal status. When you have parties you have cliques and elites and patronage and maneuvering and back-room deals and all the crap that characterises politics. I prefer individual candidates who get voted for on the basis of their ideas and policies and represent their electorates and work together for the common good without all the adversarial BS. I don't see the need for ideologies. You can have candidates with progressive views and social conservatives and libertarians and environmentalists and whatever and they can still all work together and find common ground. No-one has a monopoly on the truth. The Westminister Parliamentary model with one group in power and a so-called 'loyal opposition' backbiting everything they do is nonsense. There are good and bad ideas all across the political spectrum. I would rather vote for those than some nebulous party political 'philosophy'. I have never found any political party that I agree with or that adequately represents my views. But there are plenty of good ideas out there worth voting for.

Anyone who thinks this is a crackpot notion might want to reflect on the disengagement with the political process that is currently felt by many voters, and the declining voter turnout every election.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1722068 17-Feb-2017 22:12

Rikkitc: When you have parties you have cliques and elites and patronage and maneuvering and back-room deals and all the crap that characterises politics.

Without parties you would get all that just the same.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8