It's not my fault I hooked up with ACT, blame it on MMP
Key: Act debacle could hurt MMP
The Act Party's problems are likely to turn people off MMP, Prime Minister John Key says.
There will be a referendum on MMP at the same time as the next election, when voters will be asked whether they want to change to another electoral system.
Mr Key was asked at his post-cabinet press conference today whether he thought "the Act debacle" would affect voter attitudes.
"I think it will increase the likelihood that people will vote MMP out," he said.
"I'm wondering whether the public might say 'look, very small parties are consuming quite a lot of time' and maybe they will take the view that MMP fundamentally isn't working so well."
Mr Key said he had no scientific evidence for what he was saying, and he was expressing a personal opinion.
John Key now tells us that it’s not his fault that he selected ACT to push through a hard right agenda ranging from the sexist 90 day right to sack law that the Human Rights Commission pointed out last week hurts women more to the annexation of Auckland that has seen Rodney Hide appoint Council Controlled Organisations that will run 75% of Auckland assets without the consultation he promised – oh no, it’s not John’s fault ACT are the tail that wags National, according to John Key it’s all MMP’s fault and he thinks it will make people dump MMP, what will MMP be replaced with? Why First Past the Post of course, and First Past the Post will see NZ going back to the good old days when rich white old men made up more than 80% of Parliament.
Labour were dragged over the coals when Winston went under a cloud, yet National's smile and wave John Key doesn't get any flak from the mainstream media whatsoever over a party supporting National whose leader knew about Garrett's hypocrisy and hid it from the public all the while enforcing raw meat law and order policy.
If Labour had pulled this crap, the NZ Herald editorial department would be firebombing Government buildings.
Note, it’s not John Key’s fault for allowing a party of hypocrites to have a hand in running the country, oh no, it’s all MMP’s fault.
posted by Bomber @ 8:56 am
13 comments
13 Comments:
Real Politic at it's finest. They had a "how to we turn lemons into lemonade" meeting and came up with this self serving crud. Lets keep their feet to the fire. National are responsible for the ACT parties existence in Parliament and that is that. Don't blame the game look at the players.
So true. If MMP didn't exist then all these extremist wingnuts like the Greens and personality cults masquarading as political parties like NZ first wouldn't blight parliament.
National are responsible for the ACT parties existence in Parliament and that is that. Don't blame the game look at the players.
Well Simon, when you look at the players, the founding members of ACT are all ex Labour MP's.
Perhaps Labour has as much to answer for in the creation of ACT.
People who have nothing in life, fear little - If you reduce your population to poverty, then they will have nothing to lose from committing crime, if you let them build a life, then they will fear losing it...
A population with a real chance to build a life will bring benefits to better population health, less crime, a better economy.
How does one do this? Education thru all stages of life. Ask yourself who cut the night school funding?
What else will help this? Fostering development of REAL jobs, reducing unemployment, people WANT to work! Look what happens when a new supermarket opens, people come out of the woodwork for jobs.
What political party bashes the beneficiary to hid their own deficiencies?
Stimulus from the grass roots up.
Look at the players indeed. And create some rules so that non elected players are kicked out of the game when sinbinned. No need to change the system.
the founding members of ACT are all ex Labour MP's.
So? They were kicked out of Labour for a reason.
They were also all men. And arseholes. Is that significant?
So? They were kicked out of Labour for a reason.
They were also all men. And arseholes. Is that significant?
Not to me Richard, but it is to Simon, who was trying to make a political point that backfired somewhat.
the founding members of ACT are all ex Labour MP's.
So? They were kicked out of Labour for a reason.
No they weren't Richard. They lost their seats, or left, they weren't booted out.
They were also all men. And arseholes. Is that significant?
Not too me Richard, but it is to Simon, who tried to make a political point that backfired somewhat.
Thank goodness you said it twice Anon because the genius and subtly was lost on me the first time. Wherever ACT came from (I blame the parents myself. The only and I mean only reason that they are in Parliament now is because of National's decision to put in a no contest candidate in Epsom. You'll have to read this twice if you need to understand it Anon as I'm only going to post it once.
And voters have the option of course of keeping MMP but ditching some of the aspects of it they don't like, based on the process Simon Power has designed.
If a majority of voters back MMP next year, it triggers an independent review of MMP.
And so it’s pretty important that voters are clearly informed by the public education campaign, about how to achieve a modified MMP in this way.
Rather have STV. I'm freeing up some cash to get rid of MMP
I definitely prefer MMP's party vote that lets me support a party nationally. FPP and STV fial in my view because they are both parochial and both vulnerable to gerrymandering electorate boundaires. STV doubly so because you don't fiddle just the boundaries, you also fiddle the number to be elected within a multi-member electorate. The fewer seats in an electorate, the less proportional the outcome.
No matter how I look at it some variation on MMP is the best system, combining purely local (parochial) MPs with people elected nationally by all voters for a party.
I've very happy with MMP and will vote it again. Yes, I'd like to see the threshold at 3% and the single-seat rule dumped. But they are mere annoyances compared to FPP - the system that meant I only ever ONCE elected someone I voted for in 20 years of voting. Screw that. If NZ goes back to FPP, I'm leaving. The stupid people will have won out and NZ will be screwed.
I prefer MMP, but I don't think people know how to vote with it.
Its true that for the foreseeable future we will have only two real contenders on election day, Nats and Lab (in effect one)....MMP allows us to alter those two parties without wasting our vote.
I also don't believe that MMP allows small parties to posses a disproportionate amount of control.
We may point the finger at the Greens in the last term or ACT now(?), but do they really have that much power? I think the Greens pulled Labour to the left in the same way ACT pulls National to the right, but not that much, most of their policies still don't see the light of day....although I think the Greens had less power than ACT do now, because National wish they could be more like ACT, whereas Labour were happy to be a centrist party.
I think people don't know how to vote using MMP...most people still just vote blue or red.
If you are a Labour supporter but think they hove lost their way and moved to far to the right, a party vote for the Greens will move them back....its an indirect vote for Labour, but for the Labour that you wish still existed.....same goes for National, vote ACT to move them to the right.
Or....
Does MMP actually force National and Labour to be both centrist parties....because they can let the Greens and ACT clean up their fringe while they both attack the more undecided centrist vote?
I think both scenarios are true...but the second one happens because most people vote blue or red out of habit.
I'm with Steve, if Nats win FPP I'm out of here....if Labour win FPP I'll give them 2 months, then probably be out of here.
At least with MMP I can, to a certain extent, sometimes, kind of pretend to convince myself that my vote may have been worth casting.
Post a Comment
<< Home