Rudman on MMP

Brian Rudman writes:

Having lost the battle to skew the new Auckland council voting system to their advantage, the rich white business establishment is now turning its guns on , the proportional voting system, which since 1993, has made Parliament a true House of Representatives.

What nonsense. I just love it when people invent mythical conspiracies as part of what appears to be rampant paranoia.

It was the Labour appointed Royal Commission which proposed at large seats for the Auckland Council. Now I was one of those who did not support the at large seats, but to try and paint it as some cunning plan of rich white businessman is moronic. The motivations behind having at large seats were spelt out in detail by the Royal Commission.

Going along with it, seemingly with some reluctance, is Prime Minister John Key, saying he is honouring an election commitment made last year.

But given National has already broken its key election promise to hand out $4 billion in personal tax cuts over the next three years, it’s a bit late to start pleading principle.

And more stupidity. The global recession destroyed billions of dollars of wealth in New Zealand, and turned projected surpluses into a projected permanent deficit. Hence there was a rational and logical reason not to proceed with tax cuts as promised (and the majority of voters have accepted that).

But again it is pathetic and puerile to suggest that because economic conditions forced a change to fiscal policy, this means that every single promise made at the election should be jettisoned – even in non-economic areas such as electoral.

Rudman would no doubt be the loudest complainer if National did start breaking more promises.

Supporters of MMP (and I would today choose MMP over FPP) should concentrate their efforts on the merits of MMP, not weird conspiracy theories expressing surprise that there will be a referendum when one was promised.

Personally I would like to see a supporter of MMP honestly acknowledge that it is not perfect, and that the power it gave to Winston Peters (which was well beyond his share of the vote) wasn’t conducive to good Government.

Comments (110)

Login to comment or vote