Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

6 Comments

  1. We hope Ron wins here as NZF have very sound policies to save our country, and our free press by the new NZF policy of setting up a new public funded media platform.

    I watched the TV one Q+A this morning and was pleased to see that Winston came out with solid solutions/suggestions on climate change, environment & water quality.

    Secondly with boosting our dairy economy with milk powder not being the focus of exports as it is a low income commodity.

    Winston said the solution was to produce quality products right here in NZ from our milk powder.

    Good policies NZF have are also in rail transport, Electricity pricing, broadcasting, tourism & dairy exports.

    Keep it up Ron.

  2. Ron backed local governance and opposed amalgamation of councils in the Wairarapa with another Super City debacle driven by National.

    That gave him points.

    So the whisper I hear from many in the Wairarapa is to vote for Ron and either give the Greens for party vote so urgent environmental stuff gets a focus, or give Labour the party vote to support getting rid of National.

    And some of this is from farmers. Quite a change from 3 years ago.

    NZ First may run with National but Ron is preferred and a local boy.

  3. Don’t you run the risk that NZF go with National and instead of delivering change it entrenches the status quo?
    Wouldn’t it be better to vote for the person in Wairarapa who you actually think is the best, and then use the party vote for who has the values you want to run the country?

    1. Yes, and the best man is Ron Mark. I’d never vote NZF party vote, but Ron is the best rep for Wairarapa and as noted Kieran probably makes it via the list on current polling.
      The only possible value in Scott is that Wairarapa could have five MPs – Fox, Hart, MacAnulty, Mark, Scott.

  4. The change from FPP to MMP was supposed to result in people voting on policy, instead of partisanship. Sadly, this has mostly not been the case so far. I still believe MMP has been an improvement in some ways. But I wonder if we made a mistake in selecting it over STV, which may have let to even greater diversity of representation, while keeping the focus local, and avoiding the partisanship that the party vote contest feeds (although it was always there).

    In either case, I think what’s missing in our democracy as present is a broad understanding of how legislation is generation. Not the formal parliamentary procedures (most people have at least a rough idea how that works), but the more mysterious process by which policy ideas become detailed policy statements, and these become bills before the house. Getting people more involved in developing ideas into policy and policy into legislation, especially in areas where they have personal knowledge and experience, would increase participation and deepen our democracy, while avoiding the risks created by binding referenda or electronic voting.

Comments are closed.