A proposal for a Right of National party from Holysheet at Kiwiblog (curreently well supported with 30 upticks and 4 downticks) is little more than a futile wishlist.
Redbaiter and all other moaners about what National is not doing, here is a challenge for you. Instead of saying what national are not doing, why not say what you would do if you had the chance.
Hypothetically, we form a new party called Right of National (the coffee party)
My starting list of changes would include the following,
– Abolish all race based representation in local and national government. There is no need for the maori party or separate seats in local govt set aside for maori.
That’s a common and popular wish from the right, but there’s no sign of it being popular with any parties in Parliament apart perhaps ACT..
It’s up to voters in the current system to decide if there’s any need for the Maori Party. I think holysheet means there is no need for Maori seats. I don’t see any particular problem with them, they give similar numbers of voters the opportunity to vote for their preferred party or candidate as general electorates.
What is the actual problem with the Maori seats apart from them having a special status? Do they cause any democratic problems?
– Abolish all unnecessary govt departments. The following would be gone by lunchtime. Dept of child, youth and family services, Ministry of culture and heritage, Ministry of pacific island affairs, Ministry of Women’s affairs, (Woman don’t need govt money to have affairs), Ministry of Youth development, Office of ethnic affairs, Office of treaty settlements, Ministry of maori development. Ministry of social development. Ministry of Research Science and Technology, Ministry of economic development. Employment relations service. Citizenship and Passport office ( why have we got these separate?) By my calculations thats a total of 13 CEO’s and all office staff not required. Together with all the funding it would reduce govt expenditure greatly.
Also very popular on the right. Again there doesn’t seem much desire in Parliament to greatly reduce the bureaucracy.
This reflects an idealistic wish to have smaller government but proponents rarely analyse the actual value we get (not just monetary value) from having these departments.
I’d prefer government expenditure to be reduced but at what cost?
– Introduce minimum sentencing for any crime for which there is a jail sentence of more than 2 years jail. Remove the right to automatic name suppression.
Is there any evidence that current sentencing is not approximately the best balance?
The right to automatic name suppression is primarlly to protect victims of crime so that shouldn’t be removed. There’s a small number of high profile cases involving name suppression that look like an abuse of privilege but I don’t see any evidence that name suppressin as a whole isn’t working reasonably well.
– If you stand for election on a party list seat and an electorate seat, and you do not get elected by the electorate you wish to represent, then you do not get into parliament on the list seat. If you cannot convince your electorate to vote for you, then you obviously aren’t good enough to be in parliament.
I don’t see any point in this, I don’t know what it is trying to fix.
It would lead to a poorer quality of list candidates or less competition in electorates, neither of which would improve anything.
It would also mean that electorates would see less party variety in election campaigns, pretty much ruling out Green and NZ First electorate candidates. Some electorates could end up being virtually uncontested.
It would mean Paul Goldsmith would either not get into Parliament or would not have stood in Epsom. What would that improve?
It would mean Chris Bishop wouldn’t have become a list MP or he would have chosen not to run Trevor Mallard close in Hutt South. What would that have improved?
It would mean Labour’s most promising leader for six years would not have stood in an electorate or would not have got in on the list.
A number of promising MPs are brought into Parliament via the list but gain valuable experience in electorate campaigns.
– If you are elected into parliament and and you have a dispute with your party and leave that party then you have to resign from parliament. No ifs or buts. No waka jumping, no forming another party while on the public purse.
There’s pros and cons to this.
Walking out on the party that enabled you to get into Parliament and going solo or starting another party is not a good thing.
However there’s a risk that parties (or party leaders like Winston Peters) would abuse their power by getting rid of non-supportive or non-silent MPs.
Would this actually fix anything? How often is it a problem? And what would it improve?
If Brendon Horan had been compelled to resign when dumped by Peters then Helen Mulford would have replaced him from the NZ First list. What would that have improved? Mulford wasn’t on the NZ First list this year.
Holysheet’s list is popular in the right of or to the right of National but it’s as viable as Labour’s left wishlist like a return to compulsory unionism or the top tax rate doubled or a ‘livable wage’ for everyone whether they are in employment or not.