Monday, August 11, 2008

National: subsidy-seeking sense of entitlement

National: They hate democracy

National's proposed referendum on MMP is self-serving. They have made themselves losers (for the most part) under MMP by refusing to either put forward policies voters will support or to persuade voters to support the policies they have.

Arguably, voters have a clearer view of those policies and their effects than National does, having been subjected to them several times already and finding them wanting. It's bizarre for a political party to claim they are aiding democracy by unilaterally seeking to dump MMP and thus deprive the better part of a million voters of a vote that actually counts toward representation. National voters in safe labour seats and labour voters in safe national seats will return to the day when their vote was worthless as far as electing anyone at all was concerned.

The claim there is a public outcry is false. The same arrogant people - like Peter Shirtcliffe and Graeme Hunt - who hold voters in contempt and hate the thought of people they don't like having a vote that actually elects anyone are behind this. Beyond the monied few, any popular referendum attempt using the CIR law has fizzled for lack of interest. Every recent poll shows most people are happy with MMP.

The Supplementary Member system Key says he supports creates two classes of voters and his party gets the boost in seats their share of the vote doesn't justify. A vote for the National Party will be worth "1" while a vote for the Greens or someone other than Labour may be worth "0.5" or less, depending on how many proportional seats there are.

It says something deeply meaningful to me about National's ethics and lack of understanding of democratic equity (all votes of equal value) that they seriously advance a system where all votes are not equal and a vote for the National party earns an unearned bonus.

I can't vote for people who place themselves above democracy for every Kiwi where everyone has a vote of the same value.

National's sense of entitlement is frankly sickening. They seek a democratic subsidy (welfare for the disadvantaged - them) and limits to the political free market for their own benefit.....while claiming to be party who is the enemy of both subsidy and unearned privilege.

Where is the self-reliance they preach to others? It doesn't seem to apply when you're talking about them. They need to cheat to win and will try to tell you its for your own good.

3 comments:

  1. There's only one reason why National supports SM - it dilutes the representative power of the left.
    But you won't hear that truth from National.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave: I'm sorry to say it, but I never have any serious expectations of National being honest on anything. Their track record of half-truthes and misdirection is too long and distinguished for that. Labour isn't much better at times, but National is consistently bad all the time in this area. The few bright patches would be Jim Bolger's years in minoroty government, then in coalition under MMP.

    John Key might have got away with pretending to lead a more moderate partyif the wolves paws didn't keep appearing under the sheeps clothing at frequent intervals.

    The on thing I learned early on after arriving in NZ in 1982 is that National can't trusted and they think we're all stupid. I've never seen then make any serious effort to prive otherwise.

    This latest effort on MMP is just mroe of the same: National trying to rort the system for their advantage while claiming to do it for ours.

    At least their BS is consistent.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Couldn't agree more Steve, SM is serious undemocratic as it would greatly assist the two larger parties to the detriment of the smaller parties. With powerful lobby groups with suspect interests seeking to convince voters to abandon MMP, I am wary of any party pushing for a referendum.
    I can understand why some may not support Labour, but I fail to see why National has captured the public's imagination, when their policies (as few as there are) are so counter-intuitive and their agenda so suspect.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for deciding to share your thoughts here. In commenting on this blog, you can express any opinion you like, though any opinion expressed should make some attempt to be consistent with verifiable reality. Say what you like, confident that I won't delete any comments that are polite and respectful of me and others who may comment here. Civility aside, SPAM comments will be deleted if only because they are usually far too long and selling rubbish anyway. (Comments on posts older than 30 days are moderated. I'll approve them as soon as I can.)