Labour commits to canning ‘coat-tailing’
Labour leader David Cunliffe has committed to legislation that will remove the “coat-tailing” provisions that allow small parties to get more MPs into Parliament.
Ummmmmm, I want to be really polite here.
Labour, if you don’t like the coat tailing feature of MMP, that’s fine. Iain Lees-Galloway has had a private members bill killing it off for a while so that’s your position.
Lovely.
But electoral law is kinda really important to have broad support with, because you know, it’s the laws of elections that we all have to abide by and ramming through change in the first 100 days (glad you are using that term BTW, pity it had to be for this particular example) is kinda the thing John Key would do.
The coat tailing feature allows for small parties to build a movement, that’s democracy. There is nothing illegal or immoral in using the coat tail feature to gain representation.
It’s also there because the threshold is so high. 5% is bloody difficult to crack and if this is about democracy and the ability for participation, then killing off coat tailing while only reducing the threshold down 1 to 4 is still a kick in the teeth.
To make it more difficult for new political parties to participate in the democratic process at a time when our electoral engagement is at its lowest in 100 years seems like a perfect storm for apathy.
Could I also add that Labour were happy to use the coat tailing feature when it might have helped the Greens in the Coromandel in 1995.
Cough-cough.
This sudden explosion of social media fury over Queens Birthday weekend is a calculated move by the ABCs to flex muscle as the Party List is decided. The fury of this attack seems to have generated surprise in the Labour Leadership who have moved to minimise the momentum the ABCs may generate by simply pulling the feature altogether.
That expediency has ramifications however.
In a perfect world 1% would be the symbolic threshold for representation, and if this debate was actually about the quality of democracy and the ability for citizens to participate then Labour’s position would be a 1% threshold while removing coat tailing, but this sounds more like eliminating a rule your opponents benefit from and that isn’t particularly attractive.
UPDATE: I have ben assured that the process won’t be rammed through and that it will be open at all stages of debate.
My take is this: You have to think longer term. If the Nats win, they will not get a fourth term. The right of Labour knows this. They also believe a Lab-Green-Mana-Internet-NZ First government would be, as you have said, the most left wing in NZ history. They believe that such a government would be unpalatable, and unlikely to get a 2nd term. They believe National would win in 2017. So they are prepared to sacrifice this election, allow National and NZ First to grow unpopular as a third term government, and recapture the centre voter in 2017. National would be plunged into Civil War as it seeks to replace Key, and a centrist Labour Party would sleepwalk to a 2nd term.
Clark always went for the Centre when she had a choice. It got her three terms. Key has done the same, by bringing the Maori party into the tent. Voters like this.
Do we have to put up with this bunch of d…heads until 2017!!? Groan!
Martyn you are misrepresenting what Cunliffe said. He intends introducing a bill within 100 days, not “ramming through change within 100 days”.
Who said anything about having no debate? If it is a bill introduced into parliament then clearly there will be some debate. Ramming things through with little or debate under urgency is what National specialize in. What I would prefer is the 5% threshold to be reduced to 4% at the same time. This would take into account that 4% of all party votes in 2014 is actually many more votes than 4 or 5% in 1996 because the electorate has naturally grown in that time. At the same time it would still make it too difficult for the nutters, jokers and single issue time wasters to get a seat in parliament. Times change and MMP should change with it.
Here here Bomber, a 1% or similarly LOW value is real democracy at work.
Some have said that would be the tail wagging the dog. What rubbish. A bit like the ‘trickle down’ theory. It works against the left wing in politics and favours the right, hence it’s stupidity is parroted by the MSM etc.
If the electorate ‘LIKES’ a party enough to give them enough votes for ONE MP, I say let them have it. Why should someone’s geography count against them. i.e. if they all lived in one electorate they’d have got an MP !!
If the people choose a Parliament that has many ‘minor’ parties and no ‘big block’ major party, then deal with it. Otherwise you may as well have FPTP.
Compromise politics isn’t by definition BAD.
The public gets ‘approximately’ what they asked-voted for, and as with JK this time, if the public see him lying as much as I and others see him doing so, them they should vote him out. Simple as that.
I think David Cunliffe has had a visit from a former New Zealand cricketing hero and been made an offer he can’t refuse to throw the election, given this appalling attack on a potential coalition partner.
The “coat-tails” is a bad provision.
It conflates what should be the separate electorate and party votes.
In some electorates it effectively gives the voters two party votes as their electorate vote can trigger a party over the threshold.
Increasing the coat-tails threshold to two electorate seats seems appealing on the surface but it still has the same fundamental flaws (i.e. two electorates get to have two “party” votes).
1. Drop the coat-tails.
2. Lower the party-vote threshold to (around) 3%.
3. Allow wasted votes to be transferred to parties that meet the threshold.
Also, the consultation with the public has been done. It was huge and the Royal Commission gave its recommendations. Seems wasteful to have to redo all of that.
Comments are closed.