The Royal Commission of 1986 stole our system of MMP from West Germany. National's only role was Bolger promising a referendum, and then (along with Labour) voting for the Electoral Act 1993.
The Treaty was infamously declared a "simple nullity" in 1870.
Technology was never the issue. The USA was adopting universal male suffrage (for whites) in the 1830s, ditching property qualifications under pressure from Andrew Jackson. Hell, the USA actually had voting systems set up during the Civil War, to allow ...
If they had the ability to run a census, they had an ability to run an electoral roll. Passports have never played a role in the right to vote, and the notion of distinct citizenship is simply a reflection of "New Zealand" separating itself from the wider ...
After 1978 and 1981 - back to back elections where the party getting the most votes lost the election - Labour was at least open to investigating reform. So David Lange - much to the annoyance of his cabinet colleagues - declared there would be a Royal ...
That wasn't the justification - then or now - for property voting. Britain was having full censuses by the time New Zealand was getting settled. The traditional justification was that owning property (specifically land) gave you a stake in governmental ...
In conclusion, as the historical record shows, there has only been one general election where we could claim ‘one person, one vote’ for all people in Aotearoa New Zealand over the age of 18, which was 1975. Did the 1975 legislation say anything about ...
1993: Prisoners serving a term of less than three years can vote. 2010: Prisoners cannot vote, regardless of term, except if they were sentenced prior to 2010. 2020: Prisoners serving a term of less than three years can vote. Bizarrely enough, the 2010 ...
1898-1910: Non-ratepayers begin to be able to vote in local elections in urban areas. 1944: Non-ratepayers in rural council areas can vote in local elections. Late 1980s (can't find the specific date): The ratepayer roll (then called the property vote) was...
IIRC, the multi-property voting system was axed by the Fourth Labour Government in the 1980s, then revived by National in the early 1990s. It hasn't been addressed since.
National will ironically do extremely well with this kind of talk with voters of colour who migrated to NZ from Asia. Don't confuse East Asians with South Asians. The former are to the Right of the latter. That said, one might suggest that National's ...
Technically, NZ First ruled out working with Ardern. Nothing about Hipkins. But National won't rule out NZ First. It has been a long, long time since David Farrar badmouthed Winston Peters, and ruling out the Maori Party will only help them win Peters' ...
Key used the Maori Party and United Future to ensure that ACT wouldn't hold him hostage, while used ACT to ensure he could tell the Maori Party to sod off when he wanted. Much like the way Helen Clark used New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future ...
My first thought was that National wants to put ACT back in its place - neither of the major parties particularly want a powerful coalition partner, and ACT is polling very well right now.
Except that Charlie's role is to accept the advice of his ministers at all times - it is utterly improper for him to express any political opinions outside that. He's not even allowed to vote (of course not. He's the King, not a Commoner. Recall the name ...
The monarch is bound to accept the advice of the Prime Minister. They do not get a choice if the PM chooses their drinking mate as GG - the reason the PM does not do this is because it reflects badly on the PM. Again, Rob Muldoon and Keith Holyoake.
Not if the Head of State is a figurehead, like the Governor-General. Seriously, all I am suggesting is a re-title of the GG to make them the Head, rather than the Head's representative.
A republic is just a state without a monarch. The Head of State can be appointed - no need for a election by the public.
"Training for the job his entire life." Yet somehow Charlie feels the need to write letters to politicians, to lobby for his pet causes. His job is to sit in a chair, and sign whatever the Prime Minister asks him to sign, and he can't even do that. He's an...
Not a Green myself, but she's only in Parliament because of those people who list-voted Green in 2020 - people she is no longer representing. While she hasn't pulled a full Alamein Kopu and started voting with the Nats, I do think there's an implicit ...
No thanks. I favour a republic, but not an elected Head of State, since that grants them democratic legitimacy, and puts them on collision course with the Prime Minister. Moreover, actually enumerating their powers gets you into Australia 1975 territory, ...
It's not a matter of Oppression Olympics. It's a matter of you noting that one of your pet peeves was the demonisation of Tsarist Russia as medieval monsters. Which, to my mind, is a demonisation richly deserved.
Alexander II wasn't a Queen Victoria analogy (for a start, the absolute best-case goal would have been Germany, not Britain). He was a Mikhail Gorbachev analogy - a well-meaning liberal incompetent who wound up presiding over a mess. Ironically, it was the...
Tsarist Russia was about as able to evolve along liberal democratic lines as Nicky was able to fly to the moon. The social and economic conditions that lend themselves to liberal democracy did not exist in the Russia of 1900 (even ignoring the fundamental ...
As for Russia – it is one of my pet peeves that the Tsarist monarchs are presented as unalloyed tyrants, mired in medieval ignorance. During much of the 1900's the Russian nation paced its peers across Europe, albeit a few steps behind. Social and ...
If you think any of this has anything to do with neoliberalism, you are outright kidding yourself. This is just an ambitious mediocrity seeking greener pastures. We've all had a good laugh at National's candidate selections, but between this and Sharma, ...
Can you elaborate what happened with the baby formula? Price-differentials exist on a host of products, across a host of countries, and one might note that petrol costs to Middle-East consumers are markedly lower than they are in Europe. No-one buys up ...
Transport costs, combined with lack of economies of scale and lack of pre-existing contracts with overseas outlets. You don't make money by buying up individual blocks of cheese from the supermarket and then shipping them overseas at exorbitant cost.
They wouldn't want it. Hence the point that you'd be forcing them (amid their objections) to sell a percentage on the local market - which hurts Fonterra's earnings, but makes dairy products cheaper to NZers.
If they charge the export price on "New Zealand designated items", they won't be able to sell all the produce. Ergo, local price drops in accordance with demand and supply/
Another option - though Fonterra would not like it - is require that a certain percentage of dairy output be reserved for the New Zealand market. That would mean New Zealanders are no longer forced to pay world price for the dairy products we produce.
Recent Comments