![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Conveniently two blogs on both the Left and on the Right have today raised joint concerns about the use of Urgency by this National government to ram through legislation without the scrutiny and public submissions of the select committee process.
In brief:
[And there's a handy chart at the Dim Post]
Now today parliament again sat under urgency, ostensibly to pass the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act (itself badly flawed)(and without even bothering to consult the local elected representatives of Christchurch for their input). But they couldn't resist shoving in another bit of completely unrelated and controversial legislation under the radar. This is finally enough to push me over the edge.
This is not how law is supposed to be made in a democracy. It just isn't. I thought we had managed to get over our governments acting like dictators after the demise of FPP, but as we've seen repeatedly over the past two and a half years, the tendency hasn't been rooted out yet.
We have an election in a few months, the problem is that we don't have a credible alternative. Labour is in disarray and led by a tired career politician equally wedded to the ways and theories of the past.
Yes we need to make significant changes to the direction of the countryy. National has clearly signaled what they believe in, and I believe it will only make things worse. Labour has no new ideas. And they are both complicit in the fallacy that it is the government that will do something, and this is the lie that is fed to the general population.
Instead we need a story and a vision to pull us together. So I believe that only time will be what brings the country out of the current situation, because no alternative presents itself.
This being the case, what is the least-harmful government we could have after the next election? The only option I can see is Greens/Labour, with Greens holding enough seats to be an equal or better partner. What are the odds? Slim, but not impossible. You just have to make sure that people who don't want to vote for National or Labour get out there and vote for -someone- (not ACT). Even if it's NZ First [twitch].
The student vote could do it, look what it did for Labour in 2005.
I've given my party vote strategically to the Greens for the past couple of elections. It's clear they are the only party which is ever going to get big enough to properly break the two-party balance of power in NZ. But now it's clear we can't afford to wait for that to happen gradually. Perhaps we never could.
~~~
I did consider starting a new party, some sort of No Confidence or Count Us! party just to mobilise the disaffected vote, to give people an option to explicitly vote against the other options, to have their vote counted. But I don't want to be associated with these guys.
It looks good, until you find the bit about
Tui, anyone?
~~~
Final thought, based on a comment No Right Turn made today but hardly original - so we have Emperor Brownlee but we also have King Key.
In brief:
[Red Alert] Overall for the three Parliaments under the last Labour government the total percentage of time used for urgency was 13% (99-02) 21% (02-05) 10% (05-08). National have not completed their three years but are sitting at 31% after just over two years. Although they have another year to go, I think we can say on balance that National has used urgency more overall particularly because the percentage of time in urgency has remained high (see below)
[KiwiBlog] But it is in the area of bills passed without going through a select committee, that National should attract the most criticism. In 2009 and 2010 it passed 10 bills without giving the public the chance to submit on the bills at select committee stage. Sometimes there may be a good reasons to do so (Canterbury Earthquake etc), but the total level is far too high. The power to bypass select committees should happen very very rarely – it was only 1 – 2 times a year under Labour.
[And there's a handy chart at the Dim Post]
Now today parliament again sat under urgency, ostensibly to pass the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act (itself badly flawed)(and without even bothering to consult the local elected representatives of Christchurch for their input). But they couldn't resist shoving in another bit of completely unrelated and controversial legislation under the radar. This is finally enough to push me over the edge.
This is not how law is supposed to be made in a democracy. It just isn't. I thought we had managed to get over our governments acting like dictators after the demise of FPP, but as we've seen repeatedly over the past two and a half years, the tendency hasn't been rooted out yet.
We have an election in a few months, the problem is that we don't have a credible alternative. Labour is in disarray and led by a tired career politician equally wedded to the ways and theories of the past.
Yes we need to make significant changes to the direction of the countryy. National has clearly signaled what they believe in, and I believe it will only make things worse. Labour has no new ideas. And they are both complicit in the fallacy that it is the government that will do something, and this is the lie that is fed to the general population.
Instead we need a story and a vision to pull us together. So I believe that only time will be what brings the country out of the current situation, because no alternative presents itself.
This being the case, what is the least-harmful government we could have after the next election? The only option I can see is Greens/Labour, with Greens holding enough seats to be an equal or better partner. What are the odds? Slim, but not impossible. You just have to make sure that people who don't want to vote for National or Labour get out there and vote for -someone- (not ACT). Even if it's NZ First [twitch].
The student vote could do it, look what it did for Labour in 2005.
I've given my party vote strategically to the Greens for the past couple of elections. It's clear they are the only party which is ever going to get big enough to properly break the two-party balance of power in NZ. But now it's clear we can't afford to wait for that to happen gradually. Perhaps we never could.
~~~
I did consider starting a new party, some sort of No Confidence or Count Us! party just to mobilise the disaffected vote, to give people an option to explicitly vote against the other options, to have their vote counted. But I don't want to be associated with these guys.
It looks good, until you find the bit about
the No Confidence Party will not be listed on the electoral ballot form, nor will we have candidate's listed on the ballot form. Nor will we register as a party with the electoral commission ... All invalid votes, no votes, or those eligible but who have not voted and all voting forms marked: NC, N/C or No Confidence, shall be taken as a vote of No Confidence for the current political regime, and as a vote in favour of the No Confidence Party.
Tui, anyone?
~~~
Final thought, based on a comment No Right Turn made today but hardly original - so we have Emperor Brownlee but we also have King Key.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-13 10:37 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 08:20 pm (UTC)From: