Poms to get MMR? Whaddya think....?

[SwedishPom73]

I wanna pick yer brains for a minute....

You guys have had MMR (Mixed-Member Representation) for a few years now - 1 vote for a person, 1 for a party. It looks like the UK Government are trying to introduce the same thing here for REGIONAL GOVERNMENT in ENGLAND. I live in the West Midlands, and the outline proposal is for a 27-member assembly. It will only have STRATEGIC powers over economic development, housing, planning etc. so we're not being turned into another Australia. But it will obviously come at a cost to the taxpayer. Out of the 27 members, 18 would be elected from single-person electorates (like the 60-odd electorates in the New Zealand House) and 9 from a region wide list.

Id be interested to know what you enzedders think of MMR, whether you think it represents ordinary folk better than First-Past-The-Post, or whether its all a big waste of time....

[netchicken]

Its fractured NZ politics forever.

The smaller parties now have a lot of clout, but they have poor staying power, they come and go quickly, they are 'manned' by MPs with no experience, and no backgrounds, who push single issue politics. Its not a good look for the country.

Gone is the body of political experience that you need to govern a country, the old politicians are increasinly removed and experience is lost.

National, the traditional govt, has almost fallen to the level of a minor party, as its populatity decreases its resources decrease and the ability to fight the govt and attract quality members also decreases, so you get a major party - Labor- with a varety of small parties around it.

Each of the smaller parties are fighting each other as much as Labor giving Labor an easy ride. Labor with more resources and more experienced members handle crisises better and has vastly more experience in politics.

So there is no balance any more, gone are the 2 equal but opposite parties, instead we have a major party Labor, its small coalition parties, and its small oppositon parties.

Althought he "equal but opposite" structure was illusory at least you had confidence that an elected party would be able to govern successfully with the talent and background to act in the interests of all people. Now with the current system the smaller parties don't have the political knowledge, and in some cases don't even want power as a govt, ppreferring to stay as small and vocal.

So in summery what has happened is that the oppositon is shattered and whatever party makes it to the top early on in the first few elections will remain as the dominant party.

[SwedishPom73]

Thanks netchicken for your insight.

Even though I'm all the way over here, I can see that NZ politicians don't seem to be as big internationally as they used to be. Back in the 70's and 80's everyone who read the papers or watched the news knew who at least one NZ pollie - Keith Holyoake, Bob Muldoon, Norman Kirk or David Lange - because they punched above their weight abroad. I can at least remember how Lange kicked up a rumpus over nuclear testing.

Incidentally, I noticed recently your old Treasurer was over here - Roger Douglas - at the Tory Party Conference?!?!?!?!

Is left v. right still really relevant?