There appears to be a push for a four year Parliamentary term. It's not from the voters, as we have soundly rejected such a ridiculous idea every time we've been asked for our opinion via referendum. So I'm guessing that the politicians will get a four year term through some other means that bypasses the electorate. Not sure how they'll do it, but it will probably be with a carrot of some supposed limit of power that will be taken away again as soon as humanly possible once the four year term is cemented in place.
This opinion piece by Andy Nicholls, of Chapman Tripp shows the thinking involved. He is apparently expressing his own views, and starts with :
"The tyranny of a three-year electoral cycle", that's just a bizarre way of looking at it. Who considers it a tyranny, except those so constrained? I do find it odd that these opinions are Mr Nicholls' alone, based on this one opening statement. He does admit that
Yes, the voters are very inconvenient to a those who want more power. But isn't that the point?
Just recently here on the Kapiti Coast, most of our councillors voted in favour of putting in water meters, despite huge opposition from the ratepayers and despite most of them being voted into council in the first place because of their original opposition. So it seems that there is a push for the unpalatable coming from somewhere that considers what the public wants incidental to their plans.
It's very disturbing.
This opinion piece by Andy Nicholls, of Chapman Tripp shows the thinking involved. He is apparently expressing his own views, and starts with :
Despite a late and distinctly inauspicious start, the constitutional review set up last year may yet deliver New Zealand from the tyranny of the three-year electoral cycle.
"The tyranny of a three-year electoral cycle", that's just a bizarre way of looking at it. Who considers it a tyranny, except those so constrained? I do find it odd that these opinions are Mr Nicholls' alone, based on this one opening statement. He does admit that
Voters are naturally wary of yielding more power to the politicians. But there is a point at which voter sovereignty has to be balanced against intelligent and effective government ...
Yes, the voters are very inconvenient to a those who want more power. But isn't that the point?
Just recently here on the Kapiti Coast, most of our councillors voted in favour of putting in water meters, despite huge opposition from the ratepayers and despite most of them being voted into council in the first place because of their original opposition. So it seems that there is a push for the unpalatable coming from somewhere that considers what the public wants incidental to their plans.
It's very disturbing.
"..voter sovereignty has to be balanced against intelligent and effective government"
ReplyDeleteWhat this arrogant prick means is that voters tend to get in the way (not enough, but enough to be an irritant) of unrestrained political power.