Classification: NATO RESTRICTED Richard I agree. The collective aggregation of interest is a feature of all political parties. The candidate intentionally are committed to that aggregation of interests made manifest in the policies in the manifesto. Sure there are issues of application but the organizing principle still holds. Now let us all focus on the big issues. Like the repeal of the EVA and how much the employer running dogs beat up a climate of fear and suspicion in order to surface the inherent conservatism within the Labour Caucus and Cabinet. And the big daddy of them all the nationalization of ACC. See you all in cyberspace Be well. David Tolich PS for those of you who live north of the Mom bay Hills and can get Triangle TV, then tonight at 8:30 pm there is a Heats and Minds Methodist Mission Northern programme on the WTO It features Radha d'Souza from the APEC Monitoring Group and Brian van Dam fron the Anti-Globalisation Action Group. D'Souza is incisive in here analysis. For those of you who live South of Pokeno, then videos of the programme can be purchased from David Tolich < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> or phone 09 302 5390 or fax 09 309 0665 or letters to MMN PO Box 5104, Auckland 1036
A couple of remarks, To suggest that the people decide who stays and who goes under MMP is wrong. The party selects who is on the list and where. It is virtually impossible to get rid of people high on the list. So long as Labour puts Helen Clark # 1 then we cannot vote her out - only if Labour do not get any electorate votes or less than 5% As for discrimination between list and electorate MPs there is plenty already. Because it is the party that counts, wise voters, as has been pointed out, can vote for the best local person while voting for another party. Electorate MPs are therefore closer to real representatives in the traditional sense. They represent the people, while List MPs represent the party and only the people indirectly. I still believe that list MPs who walk have no mandate to be in parliament for they are representing a party not identifiable voters. Richard Davis Executive Officer Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee PO Box 9049, Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand Phone: +64-4-801 6000 Fax: +64-4-801 6001 http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Ritchie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 4:45 PM > To: Ian Ritchie > Subject: [PQList] re Party-hopping bill > > FYI > > Party-hopping bill nasty, undemocratic proposition > > PHILIP TEMPLE says the Government's anti-defection bill runs contrary to > parliamentary tradition. Voters are quite able to punish MPs who jump > ship. > > Dialogue, NZ Herald, 14 Dec 1999 > > Notice something? All those MPs who walked from their patties during the > last parliamentary term are all out of a job. > > How did that happen? Because we voted them out, comprehensively - a > brilliant example of MMP in action and of the voting power of the people - > the way it should be in a country that values an open citizens' democracy > and freedom of conscience. > > And that is why the new Government's proposed anti-defection bill - to > make > MPs who leave their parties immediately leave the House - is pernicious, > anti- democratic, self-serving and totally unnecessary We, the people, > should decide who stays and who goes and not authoritarian party > apparatchiks. > > Very few countries in the world have such a nasty piece of law. Those > countries which do have this provision either have short democratic > traditions, such as Bolivia and South Africa, or have a reputation for > repressive regimes, such as Zambia. India introduced the provision to > combat > rampantly corrupt behaviour that threatened the very fabric of its system. > > The proposed bill is contrary to the spirit and substance not only of > Westminster and New Zealand parliamentary traditions, but also of MMP > practice. > > The Germans, on whose MMP system ours is closely based, have no > anti-defection law. Why not? Because they remember the Nazis and know > better > than anybody the dangers of giving political parties too much power and > control over their members. > > One of the key rights enshrined in our parliamentary democracy is freedom > of > conscience - the right of any elected member to leave his or her party on > matters of policy or principle. This is a safeguard against the tyranny of > party leaderships that wish to impose policies, practices or conditions on > its MPs that are morally repugnant or repressive. By requiring MPs who > resign from their parties to also leave Parliament, the proposed bill > seeks > to elevate party power and authority above this key democratic safeguard > of > individual conscience. > > MPs are elected not by parties but by the people - whether they are > elected > by voters' constituency or list votes. Judgement of an MP's behaviour and > performance is the electors' responsibility at election time. While a > resigning constituency MP's decision might be tested at a consequent > byelection, the anti-defection bill, if made law, would remove a key right > of electors to judge a list MP's behaviour. > > There is nothing in existing law which states that list MPs should be > treated any differently to constituency MPs. This bill would discriminate > against list MPs whose decision to resign from their par ties could not be > tested as part of an election process. > > That the new Government knows that the proposed law is anti-democratic and > contrary to Westminster practice is shown by its self-serving proposal to > have a "five-year sunset clause." In other words, > > Labour and Alliance want to use the law to keep their own MPs at heel for > this term and most of the next for their own political ends. They feel > unable to exert discipline and loyalty within their own parties' > structures > and constitutions. > > The experience of the last election shows that this pernicious bill is > unnecessary. We, the voters, can make up our own minds about MPs who walk. > > As MMP settles down, fewer and fewer MPs will walk - as the German > experience shows - and when they do, it will be for very good reasons. > When > Jim Anderton walked from Labour in 1989, he waited until the following > election for endorsement as New Labour and got it because voters thought > he > had made the right decision. > > The right to walk and to be tested at the next election must be preserved. > Every citizen who values democratic rights and the right of MPs to freedom > of conscience should immediately tell their local electorate or list MP > that > the pro posed anti-defection bill must be thrown out. As it was when its > bad > smell first wafted past a select committee two years ago. > > Philip Temple is a Dunedin writer and electoral commentator. > > http://www.geocities.com/ubinz/press/1999C14HeraldTemplePartyHop.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If at anytime you wish to leave this list, simply send a letter to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with the following as the body of the letter unsubscribe pqlist . For further material and comments on the topics discussed on this list, visit our web site at http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz, this list is archived at http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz/PQList-Archive ----------------------------------------------------------------------
