Labour troffers - underpants, golf clubs, wine and private planes - all on our money.

[schrodingers cat]

MMP takes the emphasis off reality and puts the focus on turd polishing and even worse, mutual turd polishing! (you scratch my back I will scratch your's)

Real issues of governing take a back seat to political survival. (there will be a "binding" referendum on MMP at the next election, are we all ready for it?)

I remember the last time they tinkered with the political system. My belief as the time was that constituants wanted more accountability from MP's.
A list of options was drawn up at it was supposed to be clear which was the best (i.e. the one the pollies preferred) Kinda backfired when we got MMP. On us. On them.

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

[BoristheBiter]

I remember the last time they tinkered with the political system. My belief as the time was that constituants wanted more accountability from MP's.
A list of options was drawn up at it was supposed to be clear which was the best (i.e. the one the pollies preferred) Kinda backfired when we got MMP. On us. On them.

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

Totaly agree.
How can a minister run something when his/her position is not even voted for.
Each postion should be voted for, not which party will run the country but who is better for which job.
All of this list MP BS should be gone (by lunch time).

[Mully]

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

Totally agree. Can't bling you for any of your posts in this thread, but I agree with most of them. Why we need several levels (Local, Regional and Central) of the scum-sucking leeching bastards is anyone's guess.

You may remember with hilarity (or red misted rage) the referendum we had, which called for a reduction in the number of MPs - which let to a commitee (made up of MPs *ahem*) - whic decided that we didn't want fewer MPs after all.

THEY ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME. THEY ARE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR "WHANAUS" AND THEIR MATES. REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY.

I actually agree with some of the Green policies - some of them make sense and could have positive benefits for the country - but until they stop being so fucking weird, they will never be a significant force in politics. The whole "We must have co-leaders and they must be one male and one female" is pathetic.

Rod Donald was the best thing to happen to the Greens - it's unfortunate he popped his clogs, cos the rest of them come across as lunatics.

[shrub]

I remember the last time they tinkered with the political system. My belief as the time was that constituants wanted more accountability from MP's.
A list of options was drawn up at it was supposed to be clear which was the best (i.e. the one the pollies preferred) Kinda backfired when we got MMP. On us. On them.

What I struggle to understand (outside of the fact of land mass) is why we need 120 snouts in the trough, as well as local body politics and layer upon layer of obstructive beurocracy. With a population of 4 mill (less than Melbourne) why don't we just let a decent city council run the whole thing. Super City? Fuck it. Super Country.
Except then the dole office will be full of civil servants ill equipped for the real world.

I can understand your point of view, and sadly a small number of pollies ruin things for everyone. We need at least 100 politicians representing us in the house of representatives because although we have a small population, we are geographically quite big for our population, and if we look at some countries with similar populations:
Croatia has 100 - 160 politicians, 1/4 the land area and Georgia has 150 politicians with 1/3 the land area. Ireland has a similar population and 1/4 the land area and a bicameral political system (upper and lower houses) with 160 members in the house of representatives. Norway is 1/3 bigger with a similar population and a proportional representative system with 150 members. (They also have a top tax rate of 48% and around double our per capita GDP). I could go on, but per capita and given our land area, if anything we're a little under represented.

As for losing MMP - that would be a disaster. I can't think of one country that has gone from a proportional representative system to a plurality voting system, but most countries have either taken up p.r. or are looking closely at it. Certainly amongst unicameral parliaments we'd stand out, and the trend is towards p.r. because it is better. Sure, Sue Bradford pissed a lot of people off, but then so did Rob Muldoon. It really would be a retrograde step, and if we do go back to fpp I'll be expecting a return to the 6 O Clock swill and one black and white TV channel.

STV is a better system than MMP, but it's harder to grasp and the National party have only just figured out how MMP works (National should have won in 2005) and Joe Public is unlikely to be much better versed in making it work.

If you want to have honest politicians who play by the rules, vote with their conscience and not their wallet, don't play the bad mouthing and slander game and who don't rort the system, you'll need to vote for the evil Greens. Sad to say it, but when was the last time you heard about a Green taking their partner on a lavish holiday (as demonstrated by Rodney "perkbuster' Hide), buying anything dodgy, claiming on two houses (as per Bill "I don't really live in this house" English) or helping themselves to cash from charities as done by Donna "Tummy Tuck" Huata?

And the worst part about them is they actually make a lot of sense. They're evil and Sue Bradford is ugly, but they still make a lot of sense.

[shrub]

I actually agree with some of the Green policies - some of them make sense and could have positive benefits for the country - but until they stop being so fucking weird, they will never be a significant force in politics. The whole "We must have co-leaders and they must be one male and one female" is pathetic.

Rod Donald was the best thing to happen to the Greens - it's unfortunate he popped his clogs, cos the rest of them come across as lunatics.

Actually they're pretty ordinary people. One owns a VTR1000 and rides it as much as he can, one is a slightly nerdy PhD who wears a suit, one is a former high ranking diplomat who has been an Oxford professor, one is a lesbian lawyer (that's about as weird as they get) and a couple are ex schoolteachers. I've met a few of them and been impressed with their brains and professionalism.

And I personally don't have a problem with co-leaders. I'm not sure it's a better way, but I certainly doubt it's a worse way.

[BoristheBiter]

Actually they're pretty ordinary people. One owns a VTR1000 and rides it as much as he can, .

Well theres an oxymoron.

[Number One]

Now that I am no longer employed as a public servant I would just like to say...

Dirty greedy pigs They are getting rid of public servants left right and effing centre to create 'value for money' eh hellow - I wonder how many salaries those arseholes are frittering away with their entitlement complexes.

The rules for sensitive and discretionary spending are fucking simple and they are drummed into you regularly and that's even when you don't have a damn credit card full of taxpayer dollars...AND most of those tossers have private secretaries and PAs too....all there to wipe their arrogant little bums for them so they don't have to think too hard about it themselves. You bet your arse those people know the rules. "I only had the one credit card on me"....are YOU that stupid? INTENT to misuse taxpayers funds already ya greedy arses. The whole system is flawed and many of the wankers in it are too.

Actually thanks that does feel a little better.


ooo one last thing...FUCK YOU ROBOT WOMAN

...yes much betterer

Thank you and good day

[Mully]

Actually they're pretty ordinary people.

I don't doubt that they're ordinary people.
And I don't doubt that they're passionate about what they believe in.
I once had a chat with Helen Clark - she seemed nice enough in person, but on TV she appeared as an arrogant dictator.
What I'm saying is that they come across as single issue lunatics. To hell with the world, as long as the trees are saved. Regardless of whether they think that or not, that's the public image they have.

Not made any better when they are asked for a camera quote and they start spouting irrelevent bollocks. They are, in a sense, their own worst enemy.

[Swoop]

As for losing MMP - that would be a disaster. I can't think of one country that has gone from a proportional representative system to a plurality voting system, but most countries have either taken up p.r. or are looking closely at it. It really would be a retrograde step, and if we do go back to fpp I'll be expecting a return to the 6 O Clock swill and one black and white TV channel.

Some kiwis are stupid enough to want to go back to FPP.

[shrub]

What I'm saying is that they come across as single issue lunatics. To hell with the world, as long as the trees are saved. Regardless of whether they think that or not, that's the public image they have.

Not made any better when they are asked for a camera quote and they start spouting irrelevent bollocks. They are, in a sense, their own worst enemy.

Interesting perspective - I don't see that, and I believe that generally speaking the Greens come across as reasonable and rational people, albeit people who believe very strongly in what's important to them. I wonder if they have done any research on what their public perception is? I would say so, so I'm curious as to what they're doing to counter that perception.

Actually I'll go one step further - you come across as reasonable and intelligent, so what has struck you as being what you'd expect from "single issue lunatics'
and "irrelevant bollocks"?

[avgas]

Some kiwis are stupid enough to want to go back to FPP.

Would be a good idea, so long as it was a proper race. Get the fuckers running. Get rid of the fat ones.


........what do you mean first past the poll isn't done on a footy field?

[SPman]

Give Maori party anything they want, as long as we get their support

Wrong - promise to give the Maori party what they want, publicly, but actually give them 5/8ths of fuck all! The Nats don't need the Maori party to govern - unless ACT disappears up it's own arse!

Would be a good idea, so long as it was a proper race. Get the fuckers running. Get rid of the fat ones.

Make it a naked race......after watching a pack of fat, grotesque would be politicians grunting and heaving for the finish line, could you look at any of them with a straight face after.....?

[BoristheBiter]

Interesting perspective - I don't see that, and I believe that generally speaking the Greens come across as reasonable and rational people, albeit people who believe very strongly in what's important to them. I wonder if they have done any research on what their public perception is? I would say so, so I'm curious as to what they're doing to counter that perception.

I will go along with Mully on this. In my circle of friends they all have the same thought, some good policies but too many fucked up ones.
And before you say anything, we didn't all vote for the same party, some even voted labour but we don't talk to them much.

The main problem is the face of the greens is very left tree hugging hippies, real of not. As said before with out rob they have done nothing to dispel this myth.

[Mully]

Actually I'll go one step further - you come across as reasonable and intelligent, so what has struck you as being what you'd expect from "single issue lunatics'
and "irrelevant bollocks"?

At the risk of dragging this further off topic.

Sorry, I didn't see you'd added to your post.

I come across as reasonable and intelligent?? Time for my meds, I think.....

I'm not sure what your question is - there was something on the news a couple of weeks ago that National had (I think) proposed - I don't even recall what the issue was, but it was nothing major.

TV3 must have asked Russell Norman for his opinion (as they do) and he spouted some rubbish that was only marginally related to the issue, but ranted about the environment. I'm sorry I don't recall specifically what the issue was. I was watching the news with Mrs Mully and ended up gobsmacked that this guy made himself look like a clown.

I've taken the time to read the Green's website. I would estimate I would either partially or completely agree with ~75% of their published policies. (For example, I agree with the food labelling one, but disagree about the "no advertising food before 8pm or whatever it is)

If they were more moderate and reasonable, I suspect they'd get a lot more support. I would certainly consider giving them my Party Vote.

NZ should jump on the opportunity to get ahead of the curve on "green" issues - i.e. IMHO, we should be going nuts researching biofuel crops. However, I think we probably need GE involvement in our research and the idea of GE gets screamed down. I also think we should be researching energy alternatives, which the Greens are big on. National (and Labour) don't seem too worried, but if govt funded researchers can patent new wind turbine technology (for example) then there is huge potential for foreign sales (and revenue)

Much like the debate (which doesn't happen) about a nuclear power station. Nuclear may not work for NZ (low baseload, spread out population, seismic activity), but the way it is, we can't even have the debate out in the open.

The greens are almost certainly the most "principled" party in Parliament. But then, that's like being the least bad STD.....

[shrub]

I agree with a lot of what you say - the Greens need to be a little more pragmatic and get involved in some myth-dispelling. I am in the middle of a research project looking at the green consumer, and the literature is clear - there is no such thing as a green consumer and the core principles of green ideology sit well with 90% of the population - or at least the thinking population.

I'm a card carrying greenie, have been for years (I was an Act supporter before that and was a foundation member back in 93), but I think GE is a good thing. Treated carefully and managed so we avoid the disasters of doomsday genes and patenting potatoes etc, it has the solution to a lot of the world's environmental problems including carbon emissions. I also like nuclear power (in principle), just not in NZ thanks, and not until they have dealt with what to do with the waste.