Code of Ethical Conduct for MPs

A repost from two years ago on an attempt by outgoing Labour MP Ross Robertson to improve MP conduct that was not supported by either National nor Labour.

After the poor behaviour in parliament last week, hightlighted by the speaker Lockwood Smith and blogged here – Addressing disgraceful parliamentary behaviour - I emailed MPs asking for their opinions on it.

Ross Robertson (Labour MP for Manukau East) replied saying he has a Member’s Bill in the ballot that addresses MP ethics and behaviour. Whether this makes it into parliament is subject to the chance of the ballot. Roberston tried to promote his bill a few months ago:

Tuesday 24 April 2012 Media Statement

Local MP Calls For Support For Parliamentary Code

New Zealand should be a world leader in democratic accountability and transparency, according to Ross Robertson, Labour MP for Manukau East, who spoke to an audience of Rotary members this morning on good governance and democracy.

“Unfortunately New Zealand is not leading as it should be,” Ross Robertson said.

“My Members Bill, title the Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill would see a Code of Ethics adopted by MPs and followed according to its spirit and purpose. Unfortunately this bill is yet to be drawn from the members’ ballot.

Ross Robertson told Rotary members that he was frustrated that Kiwis were being put off politics due to often inaccurate perceptions about standards of behaviour.

 “New Zealanders expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to the public good,” Ross Robertson said. “This bill aims to clarify that purpose and engage young people who are being turned off politics in droves.”

“We need to demonstrate the relevance of Parliament in order to earn the respect for democracy that is so vital to our future as a free and thriving nation.

“With regard to my goal of raising respect for both Parliament and our New Zealand democracy by improving the performance of Parliament, I believe that to do nothing is not an option, for the biggest advantage of a code lies in its ability to regain the trust of citizens in the institution of Parliament and its Members.

“While progress on my bill is at the mercy of the ballot, I will continue to advocate for these important principles.

“This code is about good governance. It is about such things as integrity, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, an acceptable standard of behaviour, and acting in good faith.

“Good governance and transparency are non-negotiable for a healthy democracy,” Ross Robertson said.

I think there will be a lot of public agreement with this. How to get parties and MPs to take some notice?

Part 2, 7 (2):

It is the duty of every member of Parliament to conduct themselves in a
manner that will maintain and support the public’s trust and confidence in the
integrity of Parliament.

Many of the public would argue that some MPs are not conducting themselves in an appropriate manner in parliament. As this bill is “declaratory rather than mandatory” there should be no reason why parties can’t adopt it’s principles anyway.

Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill

Member’s Bill

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a Code of Ethical Conduct for members of
Parliament.

The legislature plays a key role in promoting good governance and curbing corruption and poor administration in all sectors of society. Citizens expect parliamentarians to maintain a high moral standard in their professional and private lives. They expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to the public good, rather than for aspirations of personal power and the pursuit of private profit. In turn, they have conferred on them the legitimate authority to take decisions that determine the fortunes of both the state and its citizens.

Failure by parliamentarians to live up to these expectations can seriously undermine the trust citizens have in the ability of their elected leaders to act in the public interest, and also in the legitimacy of the state and its institutions. At best, this leads to cynicism and apathy on the part of citizens. At worst, it leads to a questioning of the entire political system.

It is crucial therefore, that elected members of government act, and are seen to act, in an ethical manner.

The Code of Ethical Conduct is deliberately modest and declaratory rather than mandatory. There is no evidence in New Zealand of the sort of corruption that has plagued other Parliaments from time to time or is endemic in some other countries. 

The role of a member of Parliament comes with both legal and moral responsibilities. The Code deals more with the moral and ethical responsibilities than those imposed by law. This is reflected in the Code’s guiding principles of selflessness, integrity, confidentiality, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

The Code promotes principles of common courtesy and decency whilst sustaining the sense of cut and thrust that is vital in any legislature at the cutting edge of ideas, creation and consideration. The overall purposes are;

  • to promote high standards of service by politicians;
  • to inspire the quality of behaviour which reflects the honour and dignity of the profession;
  • to encourage and emphasize those positive attributes of professional conduct that characterise effective political leadership;
  • to enable politicians to declare themselves publicly accountable.

Labour MP a Soviet informant?

Stuff report in KGB used passports from NZ that a former Labour MP was a Soviet informant.

KGB files smuggled out of Russia reveal a former Labour MP was an informant for the feared Soviet spy agency and was given the codename “Gerd”.

The files say the MP was in contact with Yuri Drozhzhin, the KGB agent who handled former top government official Bill Sutch for several years.

The KGB papers were given to British authorities by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin in 1992.

But details of KGB activities in New Zealand have only just been made public by the Churchill Archives at Cambridge University.

The Mitrokhin files say an unnamed Labour MP, born in England in 1926, was in contact with Drozhzhin during the KGB agent’s Wellington posting.

I’ve searched Labour MPs including from this list on Wikipedia. I have found three Labour MPs born in 1926.

Ron Bailey:

Ronald “Ron” Leslie Bailey, QSO (born 15 December 1926), is a former New Zealand politician of theLabour Party.

He was the Member of Parliament for Heretaunga from 1960 to 1981, when he retired.

Bailey was born in Napier in 1926.

Joe Walding:

Joseph Albert (Joe) Walding, QSO (18 June 1926 – 5 June 1985) was a New Zealand politician of the Labour Party. He represented the Palmerston North for several terms. After his retirement from Parliament, he became High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, but died within months of taking the post.

Walding was born in Christchurch in 1926.

Both born in New Zealand, not England.

Trevor Davey (born 1926) is a former Member of Parliament from Gisborne in the North Island of New Zealand who represented the Labour Party.

Davey represented the Gisborne electorate in the New Zealand House of Representatives between 1972 and 1975, when he was defeated by National’s Bob Bell. He was awarded the New Zealand 1990 Medal for service to the community.

Davey was the Managing Director of Queen’s Hall, Leeds between 1956 and 1966. He served on the Gisborne City Council from 1971 to 1974.

While not stated it appears as if Davey may have come from England as he worked in Leeds prior to being an MP.

The Clayton’s photo…

…the photo Cosgrove uses when he doesn’t want to use a photo.

Yesterday a question came up on whether Clayton Cosgrove may have photoshopped himself a bit for his election hoarding.

Cosgrove hoarding

That’s not a very clear photo and it’s not clear when it was taken – at least one Labour is MP is known to be re-using their 2008 hoardings.

But it appears to be the same photo that Cosgrove is currrently using on his Facebook page:

Cosgrove FacebookIt is similar if not the same as on Labour’s campaign website:

Cosgrove campaign

Also on Facebook is a photo on a post that says …

“Today (Monday the 21st of July), I had my weekly radio slot with Chris Lynch on Newstalk ZB,

…with an accompanying photo:

Cosgrove radio

However that image is re-used as it also appears on his Timeline for his radio posts on June 30, 23, 16, May, April  etc.

Here is Cosgrove speaking in Parliament on Tuesday 22 July 2014.

Cosgrove Parliament 2014 July

Here’s something curious found on Google images.

Cosgrove van sign

That looks to be the same image as his current hoardings, Facebook profile and Labour campaign site.

Cosgrove is not MP for Waimakariri, he lost the  electorate in the 2011 election, but he is using the same image.

And if you look back at the first image he is implying he is still MP for Waimakiriri. Regardless of using old photos that’s misleading advertising.

MPs on cannabis

On Thursday 3 News political editor Patrick Gower asked MPs if they would vote to decriminalise cannabis and whether they have smoked cannabis – MPs and marijuana – politicians’ views on decriminalising pot.

Would you vote to decriminalise cannabis?

  • Paula Bennett (National, Waitakere): No
  • Peter Dunne (UnitedFuture, Ohariu): No
  • Mark Mitchell (National, Rodney): I definitely wouldn’t vote to decriminalise it.
  • Metiria Turei (Greens, list): Yes
  • Tau Henare (National, list): It’s illegal to smoke dope now, but it’s really easy to get Kronic. Work that one out.
  • Claudette Hauiti (National, list): ignored question.
  • Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi (National, list): I can’t answer that, I’m all getting late.
  • Sue Moroney (Labour, list): I’d be prepared to consider it in the context of wider drug law reform.
  • Eric Roy (National, Invercargill): No I wouldn’t.
  • Annette King (Labour, Rongatai): Probably not.
  • Andrew Williams (NZ First, list): I haven’t even thought about it myself.
  • Gareth Hughes (Greens, list): You know I used to work for Greenpeace, sailed in the Rainbow Warrior so what do you expect, and that’s why I support decriminalisation.
  • Phil Heatley (National, Whangarei): No.

No – 5
Probably not – 1
Yes – 2
Consider it or possible – 2

Wouldn’t say – 3

Have you smoked cannabis?

  • Paula Bennett (National, Waitakere): certainly not a no.
  • Peter Dunne (UnitedFuture, Ohariu): yes
  • Mark Mitchell (National, Rodney): maybe when I was 16 or 17.
  • Metiria Turei (Greens, list): Yes
  • Richard Prosser (NZ First, list) made faces and pretended he didn’t hear the question. Then he responded: Have you? Asked again: I don’t think I’ve got an answer to that question. After further questioning he kept avoiding answering, until when pressed he finally admitted: Yeah, I have.
  • Tau Henare (National, list): Yeah.
  • Eric Roy (National, Invercargill): Never.
  • Gareth Hughes (Greens, list): Yeah I’ve smoked cannabis. You know I used to work for Greenpeace, sailed in the Rainbow Warrior so what do you expect…
  • Christopher Finlayson (National, list): No
  • Catherine Delahunty (Greens, list): Yes
  • Annette King (Labour, Rongatai):Yes I did.
  • Jonathan Young (National, New Plymouth): No I don’t, obviously haven’t.
  • Todd McClay (National, Rotorua) I have in my younger days.
  • Phil Heatley (National, Whangarei):Never commented on it, never will.

 

Three month betrayal for Labour MPs?

Kim Dotcom has repeated claims that an electorate MP has committed to joining the Internet Party. If true this would amount to a three month betrayal.

Stuff reports in Dotcom launches into National:

He repeated his claim that it would be represented in Parliament, whether or not it achieved the 5 per cent MMP threshold for list seats, because a sitting electorate MP would join.

He would not name the person or say which party he or she represented, because of a confidentiality agreement, but it was not Harawira. The MP’s name would be revealed in June.

Party chief executive Vikram Kumar said another three sitting MPs had expressed interest in joining the party.

There’s no guarantee a sitting MP who jumped into the Internet Party waka would retain their seat. Far from it. If it happened there’s a high possibility they would be punished by their electorate.

But more important is what this means now. It would mean that at least one sitting MP has gone through (or is going through) their party selection process, and plans to represent their party and their electorate, with a plan to betray them in three months.

What party or parties could be involved?

Dotcom has said it’s someone other than Harawira. NZ First and Greens don’t have any electorate MPs. That leaves National. Labour, Maori Party, ACT and UnitedFuture.

It’s safe to rule out John Banks and Peter Dunne. And it seems very unlikely it would be a Maori Party MP. That leaves the big two.

While it’s possible sitting National MPs would consider it this seems unlikely – why would they swap being in the biggest party that’s currently in Government for a huge risk?

If it’s not from National that leaves Labour. This is more likely in a climate of disgruntlement and division.

Clare Curran has visited Dotcom but has categorically ruled out leaving Labour – see Curran rules out Internet party.

Shane Jones has visited Dotcom and must be considered a possibility. He has ruled out leadership of Labour as an option for him.

But what this does is raise suspicions on a number of Labour MPs. If there’s a traitor among them – or two or three or four – for the next two or three months that would be a bizarre situation.

Is Dotcom making things up and deliberately making mischief? Possibly, but it’s more likely he is overstating his case  for securing a convert to try and establish political credibility.

But in announcing something as if it’s a done deal leaves a shadow hovering over electorate MPs, especially in Labour.

This isn’t a good way to kick off a new party. Either way it doesn’t look good – if it turns out to be an empty claim there’s egg on Dotcom’s face. And if it turns out to be try the Internet Party would have a severely tainted MP – until the election.

Darien Fenton “opens up” but with mixed messages

There’s been a lot of praise for Darien Fenton “opening up” about her historic drug addiction and fair enough, good on her for being a little bit open about it.

See NZ Herald: Darien Fenton: ‘It’s a miracle I survived’MP Darien Fenton speaks out for the first time about her battle with heroin.

But it’s an odd message. I can understand some defensiveness and self protection, but Fenton plays down her addiction…

So I’m well and truly passed it. It was decades ago, so I’m one of the lucky ones I guess.

… and provides scant details. It comes more as a carefully crafted PR political self promotion rather than a heartfelt revelation.

A comment on Facebook:

The words “public health services, work place accidents, poverty and struggle” appear in the article. This is a Labour Party propaganda article put together by their Comms unit to get publicity after Hoffman’s death.

That’s a fair point, although it isn’t known if it was done by Fenton alone (it doesn’t sound like her language) or by a PR team.

But what really changed me was a job where I experienced first-hand workmates who lost their lives through workplace accidents and coming face to face with families who were struggling.

That is a rather curious explanation for kicking her habit. A workplace death could impact on someone significantly, but it sounds unusual that an addict would give a toss about “families who were struggling”. It’s common for an addict’s own struggles to rule their life.

And it’s not a surprise revelation, I’ve heard it mentioned for years. Ian Wishart revealed Fenton’s addiction and subsequent methadone treatment in his Investigate Magazine in 2008 – Labour MP’s Class-A drug addiction battle.

Fenton has not opened up, she has admitted a little, played down it’s current significance and clammed up – “declined to give further details of her drug use”.

By being vague and not in fact opening up Fenton leaves questions unanswered, so leaves doubts. Should she at least be specific about when she completed her methadone treatment?

This all raises another question – is this just a private issue that Fenton has chosen to reveal a little about? Or is it relevant to Fenton’s job as an MP?

For example in her first term in Parliament Fenton served on the Health Select Committee – was her drug addiction past relevant? Was there any potential conflict of interest?

If Fenton is praised for admitting her past problems and it’s left at that does that show a double standard?

David Garrett got blasted and hounded out of Parliament because of the revelation he had illegally obtained a passport using a false identity – decades ago.

The use of heroin is also illegal, and addicts are often involved in other illegal activities to fund their addiction. Is that a more acceptable breaking of the law than what Garrett did? Garrett claimed his misdemeanour was victimless. Drug addicts impact on more than just themselves, including aiding and abetting other addicts, and making the drug market possible.

Fenton’s experiences with drugs may have been long in the past and could have ended up making her a worthwhile contributor to Parliament. But the same could be said of Garrett. His past, and his failure to be publicly open about his past, were his political downfall and it also severely impacted on the credibility of the Act Party.

I’m in two minds about whether Fenton should actually be open rather than giving a little information along with what seemed like a self serving political promotion – there were mixed messages for sure.

Fenton hasn’t “opened up”, she has confirmed what was already known, with a hint that it’s with political motives, and then clammed up.

And there’s also a very mixed message when a belated slight admission about past misdemeanours is highly praised while the misdemeanour of others were used to destroy their political career due to the impact on their family, with attempts to also destroy their party.

 

 

 

Standing for Parliament? One woman’s view

A lot has been said about whether is good for politics for Labour to “man ban” – to have an option for electorates to ban men from being considered as a candidate.

Ways of boosting the proportion of females in Parliament has a major talking point – whether to try and force it with quotes or on merit. But something has been overlooked is what might attract more women into politics, and what might put women off trying to become an MP. I asked a woman if they would consider trying to become a candidate.

A woman’s perspective of why many women don’t want to stand for parliament

I have always been very interested in politics; love to discuss how to make the world a better place. In my younger years I have been actively involved to bring about changes.  Now that I am more mature, have grown up children I still have the same convictions of making the world a better place but with the difference that these days I leave it to others to make this happen.

There are many reasons the main one being I want to live in peace and quiet out of the public’s eye.  Politics, especially in parliament often seems like a kindergarten not a place where mature adults our representatives find the best way to help govern our country. Why would I want to subject myself to insults, taunts, personal attacks, manipulative old hands and the like.  I feel that I have fought my battles with bringing up my children and also in my career.

As we all know this is not the half of it.  There is the press – always fishing for a so called “good story”.  For me that would mean to be always on guard with what I say.  Since I and many women I know have an impulsive personality this would be very difficult.

Women are being doubly judged, once for their looks and secondly for their ability.  It doesn’t matter what their appearance is, they cop it from all quarters often particularly harshly by their fellow females, men and the press.

If a woman looks great she gets dissed for it (everything is easy for her because she’s got the look) also is she just an airhead, or is there a man behind her to help?  On the other hand if she is not blessed with a great appearance she gets flack for that such as (she looks like crap people find it difficult to concentrate on what she actually says).  Off course one could say that may apply to men also and it does no doubt but sadly is seems to apply more to women and plays a big factor in not wanting to stand for parliament.

Prosser out on his ear, maybe next month?

Richard Prosser wrote an extreme column about Muslims, a very deliberate aim to inflame, and to sound like a tough guy. And he was apparently unrepentant. Patrick Gower reported:

No apology over Muslim statements

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has outraged Muslims. Both he and his leader, Winston Peters, refuse to apologise.

“If MPs don’t say this, who will?” Mr Prosser says. “We are here to represent and to speak about the views that people have.”

A tough stance from someone who will never back down. From his book Uncommon Dissent:

One of the best things about being a no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commentator is never having to say you are sorry.

It doesn’t matter if you upset anyone, because the only people likely to be offended by your unabased dissertations of truth and common sense are pinkos and liberals and other whingeing minorities whose opinions don’t count anyway.

And get offended they certainly do!

And this his how Prosser is promoted on his book sales site:

RICHARD PROSSER is not just one of the country’s newest politicians. He’s also the outspoken, straight-talking, politically-incorrect mind behind Investigate magazine’s monthly “Eyes Right” column.

ON ‘LIBERALS': “I mean if people want to be weak, stupid, effeminate, erectile dysfunctional, naïve, apologist, namby-pamby, thumb-sucking, lefty pinko fantasy-land morons, let them find their own word for themselves, and leave “liberal” for us genuine freedom-loving, gonad-equipped, libertarian go-getters”

PREPARE FOR A WITTY, PUNCHY & EASY-TO-READ EXPLANATION OF EVERYTHING THAT’S WRONG WITH NZ, AND HOW TO PUT IT RIGHT…

But that was last year. And his unrepentant refusal to apologise was last Tuesday.

By Wednesday Prosser had changed his tune. Stuff reported Prosser’s sorry but backlash continues:

The Waimakariri-based list MP has vowed not to write any more inflammatory columns, saying: “It’s what a shock jock does, and I’m not that any more.”

The “gonad-equipped, libertarian go-getter” is not that anymore?

He “unreservedly” apologised for his provocative Investigate magazine column, which said Muslims should be banned from Western airlines.

Last night, he insisted his mea culpa was genuine. “I think you can learn from these things and not make the same mistake twice.”

He added: “I suppose the disappointing thing is that you realise you have made some mistake and set out to make an apology and that doesn’t get accepted, then that’s a little bit on the nose.”

The article was “not his best work”, he admitted. “I shouldn’t have allowed that to go out and tar them all with the same brush. Nor should I have gone down the line of calling for a blanket ban . . . it’s not a political solution.

It’s an off-the-cuff, in-the-pub solution.”

The column was not an “off-the-cuff, in-the-pub” comment. Neither was what he wrote in his book. He has made big claims about his no nonsense unrepentant wish to offend people “whose opinions don’t count anyway”.

Prosser has a right to speak, like anyone in New Zealand. But that doesn’t rule out consequences.

And as soon as he feared consequences he backslid. He made a half arsed apology – he said sorry if people were offended, he didn’t ‘unreservedly” apologise. And then said it was “on the nose” if people didn’t accept his apology – having written “One of the best things about being a no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commenter is never having to say you are sorry“.

And he didn’t stand by what he had written. When a motion was moved in the House making a statement distancing Parliament from what he had written Prosser was in the House and agreed with the motion. (See Parliamentary motion on religious equality).

Prosser’s words obviously can’t be trusted. He has not been an honest MP.

ON KEEPING POLITICIANS HONEST: “Our Prime Minister, and members of the Cabinet, need to have a similar Sword of Damocles hanging over them; they need to know that if they don’t perform, conform, behave properly, and do as We The People tell them, that they’ll be out on their ears, not maybe in three years time, but maybe next month. That should keep the bastards honest.”

He has not performed or conformed as an MP – all of Parliament made it clear they didn’t think he had behaved properly.

If one bastard was to be kept honest he would be out on his ear. Maybe this month.

Good reasons why MPs shouldn’t engage at The Standard

For several months there have been many please and demands that Labour’s leadership, caucus and MPs ‘engage’ with the peeps at The Standard. IrishBill posted on this last wee:

On engagement with the Labour caucus

Yesterday Annette King started talking with Standard commenters on a couple of threads. As I understand it this is part of a move to engage with the Standard.

While I can’t speak for other authors I welcome this as a good sign there’s a real desire to grow some trust and unity and I think MPs who post here should be made to feel welcome.

Bad habits are hard to break and there was some less than welcoming engagement with King and the next day with Darien Fenton when she had a go.

Update: As I feared I’ve already had to give two commenters a wee break so let me make the ground rules to this post explicit: I expect this thread to be a model of polite engagement and I will be heavily moderating for language and tone.

Many have had a free licence to attack as they please but for some reason MPs are prompting calls for some better behaviour and respect. (When I suggested better behaviour would make for better  engagement last August I was permanently banned for “telling them” how to run their blog).

Much comment followed about how MP engagement should be encouraged and conducted.

But there are a number of good reasons why MPs shouldn’t engage at The Standard.

  1. Engaging effectively in social media, especially blogs, takes quite a bit of time ongoing. MPs shouldn’t have the amount of time required.
  2. The Standard has a track record of un-moderated abuse and harrassment.
  3. It is common for single comments to be isolated, misrepresented and repeatedly used to discredit without being able to respond effectively.
  4. Most commenters are anonymous or use pseudonyms so it’s impossible to know who you are ‘engaging’ with.
  5. Some authors and commenters use multiple pseudonyms.
  6. Some authors and commenters use what appear to be real names but they are pseudonyms to disguise their identity.
  7. Some authors and commenters may hold office or employment at LECs, affiliates and parliamentary offices.
  8. You often need to follow the behaviour of people with pseudonyms for months to get an understanding of their motives, their associations and whether they can be trusted (and even then some change their behaviour markedly and sometimes suddenly – if it is the same person usuing the pseudonym). And some are too devious to reveal much at all.
  9. Labour party members are asking for more open discussion and transparency, that can’t be achieved on a blog where most commenters use pseudonyms.
  10. It’s an uneven playing field when one person in a discussion is clearly identified and their connections are well known (eg an MP) and those acusing, debating, discrediting could be:
  • anyone
  • a fellow MP or someone representing them
  • an MP from another party or someone representing them
  • someone from the MP’s LEC , or another MP’s LEC
  • someone (or their representative) competing with the MP for leadership,  spokesperson, electorate or list positions
  • a journalist
  • etc etc

In short, MP’s shouldn’t have time to do engage on blogs and it’s a political minefield.

There are effective ways for MPs to provide some degree of political blog engagement using a trusted intermediary, I’ve tried it with some degree of success. Open and honest identifying of those involved is essential.

And I’ve found that going to an MP (rather than demanding they come to your forum) can work, some are good at responding to questions and requests for clarifications – Darien Fenton one of them in my experience.

Some degree of interaction with MPs should be encouraged. But I don’t think a mostly anonymous/pseudonymous blog is a good forum. The Standard has a reputation of being a vipers nest of names, some of ill repute. Just look at who runs it, lprent is hell bent on lecturing and proving how abusive and nasty and unevenhanded he can be.

I’d say that The Standard needs to do a heck of a lot of proving they deserve engagement from MPs before anyone should risk their reputations and careers by diving into that fray. Abusing, discrediting, undermining and demanding, often by pseudonyms of ill repute and questionable connections and motives will take a lot of turing around into a trustworthy forum.

Electorate MP responsibilities

How should an MP prioritise their responsibilities? Should they work for the electorate, party, the country or themselves?

They are elected by the people of their electorate but some (possibly many) of their votes will have been more for the party than the persdon.

I’d like to find out what people think of what are the most important duties and responsibilities of an MP.

Some of an MP’s main responsibilities are…

  • Electorate
  • Country
  • Party leader
  • Party policies
  • Party ideologies
  • Self and family

And how should they prioritise what is most important?

For example…

20% Electorate
40% Country
5% Party leader
20% Party policies
5% Party ideologies
10% Self and family

What do you think?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 237 other followers