To Colin Stark,
Hi! Thank you for your comments of 16 January. They are much appreciated.
I feel moved to add a little more which hopefully will make things a
little clearer.
On 14 January I wrote:-
If a Shipley definition of 'indecisiveness' means procrastination I cannot
agree with her definition. Democracy to me means representation from all
involved citizens in order to obtain wise decision making on a collective
basis. It is of concern to me that Mrs Shipley does not appear to voice
the value of MMP because it was due to MMP that she has the interesting,
stimulating and headline making Government that she has been chosen to lead.
I will go on to add a few background notes which might make the logic of
Mrs Shipley's comments about Proportional Representation a little more
understandable. Firstly, MMP is being made a convenient scapegoat for her
own National Government's failures. Since the middle of last year (since
the previous coalition collapsed), New Zealand has been governed by a
minority Right Wing government, led by Jenny Shipley and supported by a
small, extreme right wing party known as ACT and what has been referred to
as a 'rag tag bunch of 'independent' MPs' (defectors from other parties).
These so-called independent MPs are not really independent but support the
minority National Government because they know if they didn't - the
government would fall and they would probably lose their jobs as the
government is not very popular to put it mildly.
In short, the New Zealand Government at the moment is dominated by self
interest and self preservation.
Mrs Shipley rails against MMP whereas in fact the unpopularity of the
government has nothing to do with MMP but is the result of the National
Party, led by Mrs Shipley, desperately clinging on to power by what ever
means that presents itself. MMP is far fairer and more representative than
FPP if it is allowed to work properly but makes a convenient scapegoat for
poor government.
Mrs Shipley, along with others in her government, are experts at
manipulating the truth.
Regards,
Ross Swanston
Further to the above comments which I am reposting to the list, I will add
some more background material which I feel is essential if one is to
understand the remarks of people like Prime Minister Jenny Shipley. It is
a long story but I will be as brief as possible.
The roots of the present paranoia against Proportional Representation (MMP)
in New Zealand go back at least to 1984 when the crusading Fourth Labour
Government was elected. Instead of implementing traditional Labour Party
policies as expected, this government lost no time in turning New Zealand
society 'on its head' by putting in place libertarian, free-market policies
which have become all too familiar in the years since. Indeed, the speed
of change, the 'blitzcrieg' approach was all part of the strategy of the
chief guru of the New Right, (Sir) Roger Douglas, Finance Minister at the
time. As Sir Roger once remarked, (they even gave him a knighthood for his
efforts), "You must present a rapidly moving target so that the enemy
fails to score a hit", or words to that effect.
By 1987 it was the turn of the labour market when the Labour Relations Act
partially deregulated the labour market by encouraging employment contracts
to replace awards. However, it did not satisfy the Business Roundtable,
representing New Zealland's largest corporations, who began a concerted
campaign for complete deregulation of the labour market from that time.
This is not to say that the Right Wing agenda of the 4th Labour Government
did not have its detractors, such as Stan Rodgers, Labour Minister in the
government and Labour Department officials, who feared for the fate of
vulnerable workers. The trouble was that once started, the New Right
Agenda was like an unstoppable tidal wave engulfing everything in its path.
By 1990 huge sections of New Zealand society had become 'shell-shocked' and
alienated, not only by the pace of change, but by policies which appeared
to callously disregard the fate of more vulnerable and weaker members as
unemployment soared, more and more got caught in 'poverty traps', violent
crime took off, and so on, the list goes on. It became obvious that the
Labour Government would be swept away by the groundswell of discontent that
had been gathering momentum throughout 1990, and so it came to pass as
Labour was swept away in the elections at the end of 1990, to be replaced
by National (led by Jim Bolger) in a landslide victory.
Under First Past the Post which was operative at the time, National and
Labour had a two-party stranglehold on power. Third parties which might
have given a viable alternative did not get a look-in but were effectively
shut out of the 'power-game'. A third party which gained say 20-25% of the
popular vote nationwide might be lucky to gain one seat. The crux of the
matter was that it was a 'no-win' situation since National, the
'alternative', represented Big Business and was even more extremely Right
Wing that Labour had ever been as at least Labour nominally represented the
Left. No such constraints were placed on National as they set out with
indecent haste to dismantle the Welfare State. The labour market was
completely deregulated by the Employment Contracts Act 1991 and benefits
were slashed by up to 25% by the Finance Act 1991. As well they
accelerated the tax cuts, privatisation, restructuring and other 'reforms'
of the Labour Government which were supposed to deliver the 'good life' and
make everybody 'better off'. In short, the change that people voted for in
1990 did not result in change at all but instead, not only resulted in
'more of the same', but saw an even greater push to implement the policies
of the Right. People seem to forget when they rant and rave against MMP
that FPP was undemocratic and smaller parties were lucky to gain a seat in
parliament, let alone break the stranglehold of National and Labour. FPP
resulted in 'unbridled power' as one commentator put it.
By contrast MMP has at least increased the representativeness of parliament
by increasing the number of Maori, women, minorities and increased the
influence of smaller parties. Contrary to what Jenny Shipley claims, a
smaller party will only have as much influence as the government is willing
to concede. Prime Minister Shipley claims that MMP gives undue influence
to smaller parties. This is NOT true - it is HER government which has
decided to give in to the demands of ACT (Association of Consumers and
Taxpayers) as a small, extreme Right Wing party and the so-called
'independents' as the price of their support. Only by so doing can she
maintain her majority of 1 and remain in power.
Now the wheel has turned full circle. If the polls are to be believed the
minority National Government together with ACT has consistently polled from
10-15% below that of Labour and the Alliance (representing the 'true' Left)
over the last six to nine months. Bolger was dethroned at the end of 1997
and replaced by Jenny Shipley in a desperate attempt to boost the
popularity of the government but the people wanted a genuine change in
direction - not a change in leader.
Shipley and her government has used and will to continue to use and exploit
every trick in the book to prevent an election before it is due at the end
of this year, because she knows that unless she has a dramatic change in
fortune, it is likely she will be history whenever it is held.
One of those tricks is to blame 'the system' when in fact it has nothing to
do with the system, but rather is a direct result of tactics (including
subtle manipulations of the truth), counter-tactics and attempts to
discredit the opposition, including those who speak out against the effects
of her free-market policies.
Attacks on MMP take the heat off her government and make a convenient
scapegoat.
I hope that helps, especially Colin Stark and his comments on the
utterances of Jenny Shipley and MMP.
Any comments?
Regards,
Ross Swanston
