Thursday, November 09, 2006

112 MPs vote for 120 MPs

What better day for turkeys to refuse to vote for Christmas than one in which the high-profile drinking-age bill was debated, and the higher-profile US elections were held. With those two headline-hogging happenings happening, who would have noticed that one of the most overwhelming votes for a political measure by electors was given the big two fingers by those they elect?

Yep, despite an overwhelming 81.5 percent of voters declaring in a nationwide referendum that they wanted fewer MPs rather than more, said MPs have said, "We know best," and thrown out Barbara Stewart's bill to cut the number of Beehive bludgers by twenty. "Mrs Stewart says it is ironic that MPs are quick to implement the will of the people on election day when it suits them but have cast aside a referendum which had the support of over 80 percent of voters." But "opponents of the bill said a drop in numbers would mean less diversity in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation." [Insert appropriate expressions of opprobrium here.]

My congratulations to the nine MPs honest enough to vote the way their employers had instructed them to.

LINKS: Bill to reduce number of MPs rejected - Stuff

RELATED: Politics-NZ

9 Comments:

Blogger Lindsay said...

ACT sticking to their core principles again. Aren't they pleasantly consistent under Rodney? (even if 'they' are only two)

11/09/2006 10:00:00 am  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

But "opponents of the bill said a drop in numbers would mean less diversity in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation."

Stupid idiots! Diversity isn't the issue here nor should it be! It is about obeying their employers and wasting less money on unnecessary politicians.

Personally I think even 100 is way too many. 20 would be a good number.

11/09/2006 01:29:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

I didn't know you were in favor of raising the drinking age pc. Over 70% of the populiation is in favor of that.

11/09/2006 02:41:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

"ACT sticking to their core principles again. Aren't they pleasantly consistent under Rodney?"

Yep. They were the only two on the correct side of both questions yesterday.

Berend: Yep, you've got me. :-)

But don't let anyone ever peddle that myth MPs are your representatives, or are your voice in Parliament.

11/09/2006 02:56:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

Well, we can agree on that pc. I don't need a representative. The only thing I need is a vote against the next tax increase. Very, very sad.

11/09/2006 09:32:00 pm  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

Peter, you're right. they don't represent us. They represent their own idiotic subjective rubbish!

But I don't agree on raising the drinking age. Not at all. Even if the voters want them to.

11/10/2006 11:56:00 am  
Blogger Blair said...

"opponents of the bill said a drop in numbers would mean less diversity in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation."

And you don't think they have a point? Liberalism and Libertarianism aren't about the will of the majority in some referendum, it's about the rights of minorities, especially the minority of one that is the individual, to live their lives free from government interference.

The fewer politicians we have, the easier it is for them to fuck us over. Traditionaly, states with very few politicians have been known as "dictatorships".

If New Zealand had 250 MPs, nothing would ever get done. And you know what? It would be worth the money.

11/10/2006 02:11:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

"The fewer politicians we have, the easier it is for them to fuck us over."

Um...

"If New Zealand had 250 MPs, nothing would ever get done. And you know what? It would be worth the money."

It would be. If having 1,000 meant nothing got done it would be worth the money.

But I don't see any evidence for that being so.

11/10/2006 02:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

The fewer politicians we have, the easier it is for them to fuck us over.

Um, that is contradictory. The more of them there are the more wages payed for with stolen money from us, thus we get more fucked over. There are other problems too.

Traditionaly, states with very few politicians have been known as "dictatorships".

Incorrectly so. Dictorship is about how the state is ruled and how the rulers get into power not by how many rulers there are.

If New Zealand had 250 MPs, nothing would ever get done. And you know what? It would be worth the money.

The result may be, but the morality wouldn't. It'd take a lot of appropriated money to pay for them. A handful of morally funded and morals driven politicians would be much better. With them we'd WANT them to get stuff done as they'd be protecting our freedom, our rights.

11/11/2006 03:40:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home