Why are we ruled by fools of political parties – as well as unelected MPs?

0

Some time ago I learned a valuable lesson. At one of our annual Summer Sounds Symposia, bringing together people from all political backgrounds, Dr Gerrit van der Lingen was the keynote speaker. A world authority in his field, he has given an excellent, knowledgeable analysis of the theory of global warming, the recent warming cyclical period, and the errors of the hockey stick graph. Already, the media has neglected not to point out that many scientists, including other prominent New Zealanders such as Dr Chris de Freitas and Dr Vincent Gray, also providing contributions to the IPCC, are dissociating themselves from its conclusions, stressing that it was dominated by political interests, including NGOs and media activists.

It was a great address, but what struck me next was a politician present who convincingly said something like “Aw shucks… I listen to you, but then I listen to a speaker give a point of view. opposite and I can never do it in my head. So I just have to vote as my party wants. I am a party animal after all. He apparently found this admission flawless.

What was equally striking was the degree of undeserved sympathy he encountered such as “Yes, poor man… we understand”. that as a former high profile lawyer, he should be equipped to weigh the pros and cons of an issue, as is done in a debate when a claim is made. Through this rigorous process, there is a good chance of arriving at the truth about a problem.

This recall was not well received, nor with the media. Their complicity in refusing to present real evidence disproving the climate alarmism agenda has been so shocking that one of our two main print media outlets, the bland named Stuff, has pledged not to release any documents challenging it.

The media have once strongly led the charge against censorship, highlighting its dangers to a free press and to democracy. How things have changed, with today’s approval of Turn of Government. Receiving funds to do so, it can, to its shame, be relied on to virtually replicate what our government led by Ardern wants it to do.

The other interesting point was this politician’s admission that he had turned his brain over to his party. What happened to the issue of individual responsibility and integrity?

Party politics have been disastrous for New Zealand. Previously, at election time, the question was which of the two main parties, national or Labor, was going to be elected to parliament using a first past the post system that ensured government by a majority of the population. In this most democratic method of electing candidates, widely used in the world, the candidate of the electorate with the most votes wins. Whichever party went on to win the most electoral seats, the election was won, in large part because the winning party got the approval of its manifesto, which was presented to the country. It is then obliged to honor its commitments.

After moving to the mixed member proportional system, we now have both elected members of parliament and elected members on a party list – the number of seats each party has determined by its share of party votes nationwide. . With the abandonment of the FPP and the introduction of these additional list candidates, the most important vote in an election period is that of the number of list deputies a party can win, to exceed the 50% threshold.

As the good Australian commentator Paul Collits reminds us, party list candidates now count more than local electoral candidates voted by the people of a constituency. These list candidates, chosen by the political party hierarchy, have no allegiance to local voters – or actual New Zealand voters. Their allegiance goes to the party leader – and the power brokers behind the scenes.

We also now have minor parties that siphon votes, winning only a small proportion of the total, but preventing either of the two main parties from obtaining an absolute majority. Since no party can now achieve this, the two main parties, making compromises to form a winning coalition in parliament, use this excuse to renege on their electoral commitments.

Such a coalition can even defeat the party with most votes in the country – producing the worst result of all. And while the practically daily exposure of the always smiling, still concerned Jacinda Ardern on the back of the coronavirus prompted Labor to let off steam in front of other political parties last time around, it still hasn’t won an absolute majority. . The subsequent formation of a problematic coalition with minor parties forced legislation on the country against the will of the majority – endorsing Green Party fanaticism and the Maori Party’s obsession with racial identity.

Even more problematic, the list candidates who no one has ever voted for, many of whom do not and will never win an electoral seat in parliament, have become ministers governing their own portfolios, virtually controlling government policy without surrendering of accounts to no elector. The results can be disastrous, as with a succession of ignorant education ministers led by the nose by our Marxist ministry, ratifying the policies overseeing the attack on academic standards, including the now shameful place of the News. -Zeeland in international assessments of math and literacy skills of our children. . It replaced propaganda, rejecting the acquisition of real knowledge by our young people in favor of indoctrination in areas such as the distortions and fabrications squarely contained in the newly proposed history curriculum – distorting our colonial history.

Lawyer Chris Finlayson, who became National Party Minister for the Treaty of Waitangi negotiations, is a shining example of so much power given to a list candidate only, despite failing to win parliamentary elections . This unelected deputy, with a sharp tongue, who does not hesitate to call his opponents “crazy”, later became attorney general, appointing two-thirds of New Zealand judges and proclaiming himself QC. In positions of great power, he was rightly or wrongly perceived by many to be preferentially inclined to iwi (today’s corporate pseudo-tribes) in their endless claims against the Crown – even to the point of suggesting they bypass the courts and go directly to his department

Previously representing Ngai Tahu in their highly controversial claim, which, according to historical evidence, arguably should never have been granted (and was dismissed by a previous special Maori affairs committee), Finlayson won against Crown attorneys. disputing the claim. Fundamentally lacking in competence at the time, the latter admitted that they had no one with any historical knowledge of the issues at stake (later citing degrees in geography and French) and incredibly enough, relied on the versions. very inventive of Ngai Tahu of their past history and their claims.

The result was described as a scam against the taxpayer. While this may seem like a somewhat extravagant assessment, there is no doubt in the minds of many who have done historical research, including Alan Everton’s compelling analysis in the Free Radical publication of the At the time, Ngai Tahu’s assertion was not justified.

It’s not uncommon for lawyers to want to beat opposing lawyers, and Finlayson later claimed it was one of the wins that gave him the most satisfaction. However, to defeat the underachievers, pitting lawyers with no historical knowledge of what they faced seems like a rather minor victory. It was also highly questionable that the relevant government minister at the time also told the Special Committee on Maori Affairs to ignore the 400 or so submissions on Ngai Tahu’s claim, the majority of whom would likely have challenged any settlement.

In addition, it was former Prime Minister John Key and then Minister Chris Finlayson who recently decided that New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed should no longer remain in the hands of the Crown, that is- that is, belong to all New Zealanders. If groups of partly Maori origin could claim continued occupation of a specific area since the signing of the treaty, they could acquire ownership not only of that coastline, but also of its fishing and mining rights. The country was assured that this was a highly unlikely outcome, given that uninterrupted possession would be nearly impossible to prove.

The result? Maori property rights have now been claimed for the entire New Zealand coastline, in some places disputed by more than one Maori group. In addition, New Zealand taxpayers are required to pay these claims against the Crown, that is, against all New Zealanders. Those against whom claims have been made are required to pay themselves to retaliate.

Whatever the pros and cons of these issues, there is little doubt that with list MPs who have never even been elected to parliament and capable of wielding such power, New Zealand does no longer has the right to be qualified as a democracy.

The way forward to claim this country does not lie in the formation of yet another political party that would inevitably be, human nature being what it is, subject to the inevitable power struggles and negotiations behind the scenes.

The only practical and possible way to win back this country is to fight for this provision for which the Swiss people fought – and won – allowing them, and not their politicians, to rule their own country. Check it out at www.100days.co.nz.


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.