Brian Rudman sets National straight today on its misconception that being the biggest party automatically gives it a moral mandate to govern, even if more people voted for it not to be in government:
The sniping about MMP is a smokescreen for the critics’ inability to adjust to the new rules. They’re talking horse racing when the game is now chess.
I would have said it’s a bit more like Twister actually. Lots of different colours on the board and it’s fairly hard to avoid ending up entangled with the other parties, but the goal is to find something that is balanced and supported enough that it can stand up and doesn’t look too depraved.
On the same topic I have to say that I am enjoying policy.net’s bloggers Chris Trotter and Matthew Hooten. What a combo – a left winger that says such offence and disagreeable things that left wingers can’t agree with him, and a right winger who peddles the sort of conspiracy theories and scandalised gossip that fuel the right wing blogosphere but, I have to assume, most right wingers also dislike.
Yesterday we had Trotter trying to address this topic of should the biggest party be entitled to govern but then also drifting off and accusing TVNZ of treason for running a badly worded poll. Then today Matthew Hooten responds by accusing the left of planning to abolish the free press. It’s not as though we don’t have real issues to debate this election without needing to create imaginary ones to totally obscure things.
Meanwhile I think Kahikatea summed up things nicely yesterday:
I’m sure there are some Labor (sic) supporters in Australia who would share John Key’s view. After all, Labor is the biggest party there in EVERY election.
It’s funny how democracy can look different from different vantage points.