What are we to make of the news that Cabinet are preparing for a referendum on MMP?
And why the sudden announcement? Especially after the mauling Key has received in certain sections of the media, after he ignored the results of the silly smacking referendum.
Here are my theories:
Distraction
The economy's stuck in a hole and someone's run off with the ladder. There won't be much good economic news for a while. Key must be wondering how he'll fight the next election. Well why fight it? Make sure the main issue for debate in 2011 is the electoral system. Do that and people might just forget how bad things are, and give Key three more years.
Bolster power of Nats
A First Past the Post election would probably wipe the Greens out. Rodney Hide would survive, as would the Maori Party and Peter Dunne.
Against them would be Labour and some old guy in Christchurch who must be thinking about retiring soon anyway.
Result: the Nats remain securely in power for several more years to come.
Of course, that presupposes the Nats will campaign against MMP. Key will probably play the statesman, so it will be left to other senior National members to attack the current system. And I predict they will.
John the champion of democracy
Maybe Key just wants some heat taken off him. He wants to be liked, and the recent claims he is anti-democratic for ignoring the recent referendum must hurt. By announcing that the MMP referendum result will be binding, he may convince people he's listening to the masses.
Anyway, what I really want to know is this: what actually is wrong with MMP? When it was introduced many of its opponents predicted we would have a succession of unstable governments where nothing would get done. We would have legislative paralysis.
Instead we've had a series of stable governments clinging mostly to the political centre, and politicians have actually talked to people in other parties.
But I'm sure we'll hear how awful the current system is in months to come. MMP will be portrayed as bad for business (they won't tell us why: we'll just have to trust them), bad for stability (again, trust them), allowing minorities to hold governments to ransom.
And if we're stupid enough to give them what they want we'll only have ourselves to blame when we discover the party in power can do what it likes, despite the wishes of the majority. Remember the'80s and early '90s?
Isn't that why we demanded a change to MMP in the first place?
Monday, September 7, 2009
6 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Everyone goes "remember the 80s and 90s". Which is of course relevant.
ReplyDeleteBut the biggest lessons come from the 1970s, when Muldoon ruled for 9 years despite losing the popular vote to Labour. National ran amazingly well organised campaigns in swing seats, and ignored the rest of the country. With MMP, Muldoon would have had a one term government. We would have had stability, and sensible government. New Zealand would be a dramatically diferent place.
Anyway, just point people to 78 and 81.
It might not convince the young folks, but it'll have an impact on anyone who disliked Muldoon or the folks that came afterwards.
ReplyDeleteGood points, and I'm old enough to recall the horrors of Muldoonism.
ReplyDeleteI mention the '80s and '90s, because the Labour govrnment in '84 essentially betrayed those who'd voted it into power. It could be argued that such betrayal was an economic necessity, due to the mess Muldoon left us in. However, the result was disillusionment with our system and politicians.
And then the Nats came into power in '90 promising to soften those hardline economic policies, only to put them into overdrive.
I think those events really made people push for a change to the system.
I don't think the younger voters will be that difficult to convince of the benefits of MMP - I was at an Aussie Election Party and several of us had to explain to a very confused 18-year-old how the Aussie, or FPP, system worked. He was hardly a politics geek but his first response was "That seems like a really stupid system."
ReplyDeleteWhen the entire politically-aware part of your life has been spent under a proportional system FPP just does not look good.
I don't understand the position of the anti-MMP types like Shirtcliffe. They claim MMP is contrary to stable government and policy certainty. They then complain it is to stable and certain and it won't let them carry out their preferred radical policy agenda.
ReplyDeleteIt must be hard for people like Shirtcliffe to admit they were wrong first time around.
ReplyDeleteMuch easier to remain in a fantasyland, where past utterances means nothing. The past is what you want it to be.