Debating the wrong issue
One of the many pieces of false logic in Clark’s assumption that we only need Helen Clark and John Key at the televised leaders debates is the assumption that all undecided voters are simply choosing between a Labour-led government and a National-led government.
In fact there are also large numbers of voters who are deciding between a National-led government that leans to the right because of pressure from either Act or United Future, a National-led government unreliant on any other parties, or a National-led government moderated by one of the other parties – most prominent at the moment being the Maori Party. There will be the same types of decisions being made about how a Labour-led government might look. I suspect all those people would equal or outnumber the people who are choosing only between Labour and National. And then there will also be a significant segment of the electorate who thinks either ‘a curse on both their houses’ or ‘keep the bastards honest’. The reality is that we are meant to be electing a representative parliament not just a Prime Minister. The best, most informative moments in televised debates in recent years, the ‘ahh’ moments that that affected people’s voting, have virtually all involved MMP party leaders either asking questions of their opponents or answering questions better than the major party leaders. Clark and Key have nothing to gain from such debates, but the public have everything to lose.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Greens complaining about lack of free speech. The ironing is delicious.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I`d add that more people voted the minor parties than voted National in 2002. Hopefully more will vote for the minor parties than Labour this election.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Ironing is always delicious. Especially on cold winter mornings.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
>> but the public have everything to lose.
In my view, they gain.
We get to hear indepth arguments from the people who will lead the country in a few weeks time. The minor parties can make huge, empty promises at another scheduled time.
Anyway, this is just MMP in action. Parties getting together to take a course of action
October 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Frog - “everything to lose” - from their absence. That last sentence parses rather poorly for me….
BP… this is what FPP looks like. When the major parties lock out the minor parties a whole range of viewpoints are completely shut out. This leads to concentration of power which is completely INconsistent with actual democratic processes.
The minor parties should IMHO, make much more of a point of this. There are ways to do this. Collectively the minor parties have the ability to paralyze the process and embarrass the hell out of the government.
“Key” or “Clark” will lead the country after the next election with the support of the parliament. Neither is as trustworthy as Winston
and that may actually be true as opposed to just an artifact of a flawed poll.
They’re better at not getting caught perhaps, but not worthy of the sort of trust I have in Jeanette and Russell and Pita and even Rodney. People who are honest about what they stand for, even if I disagree with it, are far more desirable as leaders.
However the country is led the support of the parliament is not guaranteed unless that party manages 50+% of the vote which seems unlikely even on current form. Which means that the new PM will have to have the support of SOMEONE who is not present at these debates and that person or persons will have the power to throw the government into an early election if he/she doesn’t listen.
…and we have NO idea based on the current BS, why or which of those parties might decide to do just that.
Do you really think this is a GOOD idea?
I’d suggest a minimum of 4 additional debates with the Maori party and the Greens going one-on-one with National and Labour… each… if you must have the views contrasted one-on-one. Lets “focus” on the difference between Coke and Pepsi when most of the undecided would rather drink Hemlock than vote for either… right….
BJ
October 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
“most prominent at the moment being the Maori Party”
Whereas the environment concerns most voters far more than racist issues, so why isn’t the Green party sitting on the middle of the see-saw playing the prominent position?
October 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
What happens when lower paid citizens can’t afford to live in the nations (once were) beauty spots:
“Oiling Wheels to get Workers
WILLING workers are important in any tourist town, but in a busy place like Queenstown they’re essential.
From restaurant wait-staff to retail assistants and hotel cleaners, it’s these people who keep the town ticking and support local businesses as they strive to succeed.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, staff tend to come and go, leaving many businesses continually looking for workers and attempting to keep their businesses adequately staffed.
Queenstowns appetite for workers is voracious and as the fastest-growing region in the country, that hunger is unlikely to be satiated any time soon.
That’s why government support for businesses is crucial as they search for adequate staff. Unfortunately in Queenstown, businesses have been disappointed by the Department of Labour after promises of fast-track work permits for foreign workers have fallen flat.
The proposal was a good one and promised to ease the resort’s labour crisis. Unfortunately, it appears to have exacerbated problems - with some even claiming that foreign workers are leaving town
because of DoL hold-ups.
It’s pretty unreasonable that the bureaucrats can hold Queenstown businesses to ransom while they process work visas in this inefficient manner.
Local businesses have pinned their hopes on the DoL delivering the goods. Instead, they’ve been shortchanged by a work permit system that appears to be clumsy and protracted.
I believe this idea has the potential to work in Queenstown, it simply needs better delivery.
I’d like to see the DoL try harder, but more than that I think we need to see some innovative immigration policies that more effectively meet the needs of people in places like Central Otago.
National recognises the importance of ensuring that businesses have access to a stable and skilled workforce. We intend to introduce policies that will enhance an employer’s opportunities, not disadvantage them.
In fact, our immigration policy is based around meeting employer recruitment needs and we promise we will deliver.
In a place like Queenstown, we intend to assist businesses in succeeding – rather than putting impediments in their way as has happened in the past.
National plans to remove the layers of bureaucratic red tape for skilled immigrants, with an immigration policy that’s about attracting the right skills and investment to allow our economy to grow.
We also want to streamline employer accreditation policies to recruit overseas and, importantly for Central Otago, reduce the bureaucratic barriers to being able to hire seasonal workers from countries outside the existing RSE scheme, where the RSE scheme is unable to meet employers’ needs.
At the very least, Queenstown should be getting access to foreign workers through a streamlined work permit system.
We need to do better than make promises about working faster by actually getting on with the job and ensuring that the Wakatipu gets the workers it so desperately needs.
I’d like to see the DoL try harder, but more than that I think we need to see some innovative immigration policies that more effectively meet the needs of people in places like Central Otago.
Bill English is National deputy leader and Wakatipu candidate in this years election”
October 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“National recognises the importance of ensuring that businesses have access to a stable and skilled workforce. We intend to introduce policies that will enhance an employer’s opportunities, not disadvantage them.
In fact, our immigration policy is based around meeting employer recruitment needs and we promise we will deliver.
In a place like Queenstown, we intend to assist businesses in succeeding – rather than putting impediments in their way as has happened in the past.”
He is talking about: “restaurant wait-staff to retail assistants and hotel cleaners,” infact.
Who funds National?