Then unions should simply represent workers interests – and leave it to individual workers to join political parties. It’s not as if the essential voice of workers would change – but lets note business lobby both main parties, why should unions not do the same.

National professes concern about lower wage rates here compared to Oz, then why should not unions make this an issue to lobby any National government on? Not as groups seen to be in Labour’s camp – but as the voice of workers.

Ideally such a transformation of the labour movement should coincide with what Glenn called “some rationing of funding” for political parties.

Why not a form of matching funds – whereby whatever a party collects from its paid up members (up to a $100 maximum) is matched by a taxpayer top up. If a party collected 10,000 lots of $100 that would be $1 million and topped up to $2 million.

In Labour’s case – I am surprised there is not a policy of donating 10% of Cabinet/MP and related staff pay to the party funding (this would be between $500,000 to a million). The Greens commitment to walking the talk is made manifest in their example here.

If otherwise party funding was limited to identified donations by members (above the $100 level) or by non members – we would have a clean and transparent system.

We should under your ideas attribute the work of the EMA, every pentocostal church, etc to some right wing parties.

In fact where exactly do we let this end? Or would you prefer to simply put in a law as skewed as the 1993 act?

“A review of MMP was promised and although it was theoretically carried out by the Select Committee, that wasn’t what people were led to believe would happen. Why not take a genuine review of that,…”

Actually a review of MMP was never promised. An excellent discussion on MMP was held last sunday morning on Radio National – don’t have the link but I’m sure if your interested you can find it. Interestingly all panel members considered that with a few small amendments in hindsight, MMP was much preferable to FPP. It certainly has delivered a far more representative cross section of the population, than middle-aged white males as selected by FPP. (When Richard Prebble entered Parliament there were 3 women and the rest were male. Only 4 of the 80 members were maori, the rest european.)

However it is better and more inclusive than how the commission did it in 1986. The issue is basically how many people have any idea about electoral law and practice amongst the public. How long will it take to bring them up to the standard to understand the arguments?

That is achievable with 70 people. It is bloody impossible when you consider the voting population. Have you looked at the understanding MMP stats that the electoral commission put out?

The way I’m think about this is that we’ve looking at having a panel of 3 judges and a jury of 70 members. It is a proven model for bringing citizens into helping to make complex decisions. Presumably they will allow the equivalents of lawyers as well for various points of view.

The questions comes down to:-
1. who gets chosen to be in the jury.
2. public submissions.
3. who gets to put in lawyers.

I think that it has a good probablity of being workable. But I suspect that we’d need to help focus public attention on to the process to keep it transparent and to be more than a figleaf.

Okay, better than nothing. Maybe.

I don’t like for one minute the top down approach in so far as appointment and selection respectively. Or the fact the forum will be ‘directed’ by the panel and that panel’s final decision will merely be ‘informed’ by the forum.

I suspect the goal posts will be firmly set to achieve a predetermined goal.

On a question of window dressing versus robust substantive debate…(I was going to say robust inclusive substantive debate, but the process is anything but inclusive)….my money is very much on the former. The process does not appear to allow for participation other than by those chosen.

The conclusions are likely to already have been drawn before the process begins and ‘education’,strategy/counter argument already drawn up to pre-empt any line of enquiry not conducive to aforementioned conclusions.

capcha: “of drexel”. millken sunk them (Drexel Burnham Lambert)with junk bonds and squibber and hooter are trying to do the same here with junk policy

While I’m not the National Party or one of their supporters (I prefer to support ideas and individuals) I’d replace it (the panel, not the Act) with an unfiltered process of consultation.

A review of MMP was promised and although it was theoretically carried out by the Select Committee, that wasn’t what people were led to believe would happen. Why not take a genuine review of that, plus political funding, plus a bunch of related issues around political process, ethics and accountability and embark on a comprehensive process of consultation?

The form that took would itself need consultation, but might involve a “summit” for those keen enough to spend days debating the issues, a public submission process (the web would help here), meetings around the country, and so on. Then a multi-question referendum.

With all due respect to the academics chosen, I don’t think they’re omniscient (and to be fair, I doubt any of them would claim to be) and this is too important an issue for the eventual recommendations to be put through a filter of just three people.