Who will win the 2011 election?

[Indiana_Jones]

Ok first you are talking about Government so nothing makes normal sense. 120 MPs actually results in the odd number you grave. One voting MP loses their normal right to vote because they become the speaker, they get the casting but not a normal vote.

Guess that makes some sense then.

So what the hell is the difference between the votes?

-Indy

[oneofsix]

Guess that makes some sense then.

So what the hell is the difference between the votes?

-Indy

When a motion or whatever is put to the vote and the MPs do their ritual the speaker doesn't have a vote but if somehow you do end up with a tie the speaker can then have the casting vote. Normally the speaker comes from the ruling party. I do stand to be corrected but this is how I remember it from Labour's last term when they were short of actual Labour MPs, relying heavily on their partners, and appointing the speaker left them at risk of a tied vote unless they could secure the likes of Peter Dunn.
Sorry work interrupted me, bloody bosses

[Swoop]

And yes, the removal of mine inspectors and reducing the safety requirements for mine operators came about in that time period.

Regarding MP's. I see no need for any single MP to hold more than one portfolio. Do the job well and stop attempting to juggle several. We could happily have less MP's who are more productive or efficient. For the size of our landmass, population representation can easily be achieved with less. Binding referenda would help.
This represents two sorts of savings for the country. Immediate savings of less parasites in parliament with all the associated sycophants; and,
Secondly the country saves in the long term by not having to provide free perks-for-life to ex public servants. They are paid for a specific period of time to do their job. Who else gets freebies for life when they leave a job*? Certainly not the extreme majority of your average employees. Even large companies just have the golden handshake and "goodbye".

DoL was quite cumbersome, admittedly, but it did appear more robust in comparison to the OSH system currently used. They were more proactive rather than the reactive approach seen now.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the wake of Pike River.



* Yes, after meeting certain criteria.

[shrub]

I quite like the Swiss model, you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

Direct democracy certainly has it's merits, and while Switzerland is the only modern country using it, the ancient Greeks used a form of direct democracy although suffrage was very limited. Aspects of DD have been used in a number of US states and in some nation states with varying levels of success. In principle it's a great idea, but sadly the majority of people lack the ability or motivation to make a voting decision based on reason with our elections, so what the hell would happen if they had to vote on dozens of different things?

You also run the risk of lobby groups with buckets of cash using that cash to influence the minions. If I threw enough money at advertising it I could convince a majority of people that motorcycles should be banned. It introduces a concept called tyranny of the majority where society is completely and entirely operated around the interests and needs of a majority and minority groups don't get a look in, and I don't like that idea much.

[shrub]

Regarding MP's. I see no need for any single MP to hold more than one portfolio. Do the job well and stop attempting to juggle several. We could happily have less MP's who are more productive or efficient. For the size of our landmass, population representation can easily be achieved with less. Binding referenda would help.

I thought you were arguing for less MPs? Typically there are around 80 portfolios in existence at any one time, so it would be virtually impossible for each MP to only hold one portfolio. As for holding one and doing the job well, Jerry Brownlee only has Canty Earthquake and is doing a fucking appalling job. Ask anyone down here what they think of him. Binding referenda would require an increase in the number of politicians because the number of motions hitting the chamber would increase significantly.

his represents two sorts of savings for the country. Immediate savings of less parasites in parliament with all the associated sycophants; and,
Secondly the country saves in the long term by not having to provide free perks-for-life to ex public servants. They are paid for a specific period of time to do their job. Who else gets freebies for life when they leave a job*? Certainly not the extreme majority of your average employees. Even large companies just have the golden handshake and "goodbye".

]

I think the savings generated by having less politicians would be minimal - a few million at best, and public servants these days don't have perks for life. The perks for life for MPs is something that would warrant being addressed, and I believe the Green party are lobbying for them to be reduced.

[Swoop]

Jerry Brownlee only has Canty Earthquake and is doing a fucking appalling job.

Thank goodness he doesn't have a second one to ignore/be interrupted with!

[shrub]

Thank goodness he doesn't have a second one to ignore/be interrupted with!

One portfolio is too many for him - unless it is the Pie Eating portfolio.

He is just a joke and I can't believe Key gave him one of the most important jobs in government right now. CERA hate him (of so I am told) because he is a bumbling idiot with no idea what he is doing beyond trying to look after his mates.

[Swoop]

the Pie Eating portfolio.

I think Parekura Horomia has that portfolio sewn up.

[Banditbandit]

It's a completely different country... just like 100% pure socialism/communism is where every dollar you earn is taken away and distributed evenly (that's the idea...)

Who told you that was socialism/communism? Its certainly not how I see those systems (and I am neither...)

You can't talk about police force/defence force in the same way you seem them now. Imagine everything privatised, and only when there is a need for a certain type of job will people pay for it. IE, private road workers, your road needs repairing just the locals might get together and decide to hire. You want rubbish collected you pay a rubbish collection company. You want your kids to go to school, you pay a school.

Hmmm .. are you advocating an anarchist system? Looks to me like pure anarcho-syndicalism with a paper-based symbol of value-exchange.

The less money you have the worse the school. Etc, etc. That is 100% pure capitalism... and is about as good for society as 100% pure socialism. But that's the idea behind capitaist policies, that people spend their own money on what they want. And socialist policies spend everyones money on whatever the government/voters decide upon.

Again, who told you that was what socialism was? Have you ever read any of the socialist writers?

And again - I don't see those ideas in any of the capitalist writers either ...

I quite like the Swiss model,

The canton model resembles anarcho-syndicalism in many ways ...

you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

I seem to remember that the state of California tried the referendum route - and nearly went broke as the people turned down everything the state Government tried to do ... not only spending money but also raising money - so the state wound up with more expenses than income ...

[Winston001]

We have 120 MPs, right?

Why is it an even number?

Actually our MMP system can deliver up to 123 MPs and I think an earlier Parliament had 121 or 122.

I do laugh at people who clamour for more democracy and in the next breath demand less MPs. Logic ain't their strong point.

[shrub]

Actually our MMP system can deliver up to 123 MPs and I think an earlier Parliament had 121 or 122.

I do laugh at people who clamour for more democracy and in the next breath demand less MPs. Logic ain't their strong point.

Their mate Garth from down at the pub reckons there should be less MPs, and Garth has a grouse Commodore and a hot missus, so you gotta take what he says seriously.

[Spearfish]

Who told you that was socialism/communism? Its certainly not how I see those systems (and I am neither...)



Hmmm .. are you advocating an anarchist system? Looks to me like pure anarcho-syndicalism with a paper-based symbol of value-exchange.




Again, who told you that was what socialism was? Have you ever read any of the socialist writers?

And again - I don't see those ideas in any of the capitalist writers either ...



The canton model resembles anarcho-syndicalism in many ways ...



I seem to remember that the state of California tried the referendum route - and nearly went broke as the people turned down everything the state Government tried to do ... not only spending money but also raising money - so the state wound up with more expenses than income ...

I'm impressed with your multi quote technique.
I haven't figured that one out yet.






and just in case....
Even if there was one I wouldn't have used a sarcasm smiley.

[Banditbandit]

I'm impressed with your multi quote technique.
I haven't figured that one out yet.

Thank you .. it is not hard ..

and just in case....
Even if there was one I wouldn't have used a sarcasm smiley.

Do it like this ... hit the "reply with quote" button.

Run your mouse over the the first section within the first [ ], right click and hit copy.

Go to where you want to break the quote hit the Enter key on the keyboard a couple of times to create a space. At the end of the section type [/QUOTE] .. and at the start of the second section right click and hit "paste" so that the beginning of each quote is repeated. Type what you want into the space between ...

Do it as many times as you need ..

You don't actually need to copy and paste the first [ ] you can run with [QUOTE] - I'm just too lazy to edit - so I use the mouse and "paste" ..

[Spearfish]

Thank you .. it is not hard ..




Do it like this ... hit the "reply with quote" button.

Run your mouse over the the first section within the first [ ], right click and hit copy.

Go to where you want to break the quote hit the Enter key on the keyboard a couple of times to create a space. At the end of the section type

.. and at the start of the second section right click and hit "paste" so that the beginning of each quote is repeated. Type what you want into the space between ...

Do it as many times as you need ..

You don't actually need to copy and paste the first [ ] you can run with

- I'm just too lazy to edit - so I use the mouse and "paste" ..

Ha!..bugga that I get logged out with simple posts now.

[mashman]

I quite like the Swiss model, you can make seek a binding referendum for ammendment of a policy if you collect over 100,000 signatures. And the government constantly holds referendums on important policies. So the people actually decide, not the person you voted in. In that way the majority of the population get to contol what happens to the majority of tax quite directly.

the Swiss were facing potential bankruptcy in 2009/2010, so I don't see how that system is any superior to the one we currently have. Oh and I doubt (happy to be wrong) we have ever had a 100% socialist country, let alone a western one.