NOT the anti-MMP Jordan Williams. (click)
Predictable comments after the MMP referendum result, I guess. What caught my eye about this piece from Radio New Zealand is that it’s basically a platform for Jordan Williams to kvetch about how unfair it all was.
His point, shared by his rabbit shooting buddies, appears to be that the anti-MMP debate was ‘lost’ because there wasn’t enough ‘intelligent discussion’ about it. (Yeah, I sometimes think that when my wife’s point of view prevails in an argument discussion.) And he almost blames the gummint.
MMP advocates say changes needed to better suit NZ
The pro-MMP campaign says the proportional voting system needs to be tweaked to make it fit the New Zealand situation.
The results of the referendum undertaken on election day show 58% of voters want to keep MMP.
Of the 42% who did not want MMP, most wanted to go back to First Past the Post.
The Government will now carry out a review of the MMP system.A spokesperson for the Keep MMP campaign, Sandra Grey, says one of the main issues that should be looked at is the ability for candidates to stand for both a party list and an electorate.
She says it is likely MMP will remain for at least 50 years and the system will get better as politicians and voters grow accustomed to it.However, the anti-MMP campaign says the debate about a possible change to the voting system was undercooked as none of the political parties wanted to engage in it.
Jordan Williams from Vote for Change says the referendum result is a strategic victory for the left, with unions and both Labour and the Green parties backing MMP.
He says it is a shame the National Party did not ensure intelligent discussion about the options, as the only systems people knew about were MMP and First Past the Post.
Mr Williams says the debate about the merits of MMP will not go away if current problems with the sytem (sic) are not seriously addressed.Copyright © 2011, Radio New Zealand
No doubt the subject of electoral law reform will continue to be a political football, as it has been since I was a schoolboy, like Jordan.
– P
To be honest I am not sure which system I prefer they all have Pros/Cons.
FPP the party can squeak in and rule all.
MMP I don’t like the minority’s having so much influence, and in this years case after National pretty much ruling alone.
But I can’t deny they debate/discussion over the referendum was non existent. The Pro MMP side claiming there was enough is out right lying.
By the way I hate to pat my back but I think my comments on the Cup of Tea/Winston not impacting National but infact hurts Labour weren’t far off.
And since Election is over I have not heard one opposing party mention the conversation why not? because they now have nothing to gain from a private casual conversation, so they have dropped the Non issue.
“…the Cup of Tea/Winston not impacting National but infact hurts Labour weren’t far off.”
I wouldn’t dare disturb a man in the process of self-congratulation, but what makes you think Labour shed votes to NZ First?
How do you explain the concerted efforts by National figures and proxies to ‘scandalise, trivialise, demonise’ (etc) Peters?
I fort the Greens would’ve hurt Labour’s vote more. (But what do I know?)
– P
Yes I agree Greens vote hurt Labour too but so did NZF, National’s guesstimated numbers proved correct Greens did get a little more than forecast NZF were expected to get nothing and Labour were destroyed so sure Greens got some but NZF got more.
Well as I stated before the Anti Peters stance by National was overstated to the point where National were Anti other party’s just the same.
And positions Anti National were pumping Winston’s attention to try and hurt National.
Anyway Labour will be better off for getting rid of Phil Goof, good luck to them.
Well put.
For me, watching National abandon ‘positive campaigning’ and kick into frenetic character assassination against Peters was instructive.
I called it a big comedown for ‘Brand Key’ and looking back on it now, it still seems desperate. That JK got involved in the denigration was a reminder of his previous performances wrt journos Hager and Stephenson. An appearance of imperiousness?
Peters made use of the ‘own goal’ of the cup of tea tape bizzo … but remember (brief gloat) I picked he was going to ‘rise again’ in April when he started to attract the ol’ adoring treatment at Grey Power meetings.
Labour ‘destroyed’? Hmmm Chastened, smacked-down, yes, no question. Their list has done them no good, really. Time for the inevitable changing of the guard.
Clark’s hand-off to Goff was the right move for her personally, I think, but I’m not sure WHO could possibly have been expected to lead Labour to a victory in 2011 just 3 years later … against a competent-enough government and a backdrop of world financial crisis and local recession and disaster.
The John Key/Steven Joyce government deserves its day in the sun, surely? That’s political cycles in action. It’s fair enough.
I remember observing the tragic waste of talent when the Nats had NINE YEARS in opposition.
Turn and turn about?