Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because it >comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)I would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because it >>comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)I would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses. I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because it >>>comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)I would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it >> would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the >> Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber >could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because it >>>>comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)I would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it >>> would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the >>> Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber >>could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council)
was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members, >therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political
reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens >(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not >foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are only
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by
coalition governments or minority governments with only
confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:47:20 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because itI would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it
would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the
Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber >>could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council)
was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members, >therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political
reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens >(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not >foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are onlyIn Australia, the UK and the USA, the net effect of second houses
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by >coalition governments or minority governments with only >confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
appears to be to make legislation more conservative - either through
an election process that favours lower populated rural areas, or for
the UK through an appointment basis that favours 'establishment'
figures - and includes a number of Bishops of the Church of England
(the Conservatives are seeing if there is a way to cut them out!).
There are probably some precautions that could force longer
consideration of legislation, but that can backfire - there are times
when any government has to move quickly - but suitable legislation
could perhaps have stopped the sort of outrageous legislation as the Robodebt scandal in Australia.
Many see the legacy of NZ First being a wariness over the tail wagging
the dog when a small party holds the 'balance of power' - at least
with the various Peter Dunne parties we knew that Dunne was only
interested in being able to retire as an MP . . .
Any legislation that put in significant change regarding greater
exposure of process would need to be agreed by both major parties;
there is doubt that either would want to agree with anything put up by
the other.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:01:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 22:19:26 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:47:20 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:In Australia, the UK and the USA, the net effect of second houses
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because itI would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country. >> >>> In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it
would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the
Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber
could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council) >> >was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members,
therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political
reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens
(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not
foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are only
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by
coalition governments or minority governments with only
confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
appears to be to make legislation more conservative - either through
The USA has a Democrat Senate and Republican Congress. As always, Dickbot gets it exactly wrong.To JohnO, the past is not ever relevant. Look at the course of history
- and the reason why both main parties in the USA are to the right of
both major parties in New Zealand . . .
completely wrong.an election process that favours lower populated rural areas, or for
the UK through an appointment basis that favours 'establishment'
figures - and includes a number of Bishops of the Church of England
(the Conservatives are seeing if there is a way to cut them out!).
The appointed members of the UK House of Lords is quite diverse and there is no political majority there. "Cross bench" is the second largest political faction and the Conservatives comprise approx 33% of its members. As always, Dickbot gets it
Again, look at the course of history, and of actual decisions made by
the House of Lords . . .
There are probably some precautions that could force longer
consideration of legislation, but that can backfire - there are times
when any government has to move quickly - but suitable legislation
could perhaps have stopped the sort of outrageous legislation as the
Robodebt scandal in Australia.
Many see the legacy of NZ First being a wariness over the tail wagging
the dog when a small party holds the 'balance of power' - at least
with the various Peter Dunne parties we knew that Dunne was only
interested in being able to retire as an MP . . .
Any legislation that put in significant change regarding greater
exposure of process would need to be agreed by both major parties;
there is doubt that either would want to agree with anything put up by
the other.
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 22:19:26 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:To JohnO, the past is not ever relevant. Look at the course of history
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:47:20 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:In Australia, the UK and the USA, the net effect of second houses
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because itI would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it
would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the
Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber >> >>could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council)
was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members,
therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political
reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens
(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not
foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are only
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by
coalition governments or minority governments with only
confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
appears to be to make legislation more conservative - either through
The USA has a Democrat Senate and Republican Congress. As always, Dickbot gets it exactly wrong.
completely wrong.an election process that favours lower populated rural areas, or for
the UK through an appointment basis that favours 'establishment'
figures - and includes a number of Bishops of the Church of England
(the Conservatives are seeing if there is a way to cut them out!).
The appointed members of the UK House of Lords is quite diverse and there is no political majority there. "Cross bench" is the second largest political faction and the Conservatives comprise approx 33% of its members. As always, Dickbot gets it
There are probably some precautions that could force longer
consideration of legislation, but that can backfire - there are times
when any government has to move quickly - but suitable legislation
could perhaps have stopped the sort of outrageous legislation as the
Robodebt scandal in Australia.
Many see the legacy of NZ First being a wariness over the tail wagging
the dog when a small party holds the 'balance of power' - at least
with the various Peter Dunne parties we knew that Dunne was only
interested in being able to retire as an MP . . .
Any legislation that put in significant change regarding greater
exposure of process would need to be agreed by both major parties;
there is doubt that either would want to agree with anything put up by
the other.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:01:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 22:19:26 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:47:20 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:In Australia, the UK and the USA, the net effect of second houses
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because itI would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country. >> >>> In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it
would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the
Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber
could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council) >> >was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members,
therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political
reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens
(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not
foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are only
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by
coalition governments or minority governments with only
confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
appears to be to make legislation more conservative - either through
The USA has a Democrat Senate and Republican Congress. As always, Dickbot gets it exactly wrong.To JohnO, the past is not ever relevant. Look at the course of history
- and the reason why both main parties in the USA are to the right of
both major parties in New Zealand . . .
completely wrong.an election process that favours lower populated rural areas, or for
the UK through an appointment basis that favours 'establishment'
figures - and includes a number of Bishops of the Church of England
(the Conservatives are seeing if there is a way to cut them out!).
The appointed members of the UK House of Lords is quite diverse and there is no political majority there. "Cross bench" is the second largest political faction and the Conservatives comprise approx 33% of its members. As always, Dickbot gets it
Again, look at the course of history, and of actual decisions made by
the House of Lords . . .
There are probably some precautions that could force longer
consideration of legislation, but that can backfire - there are times
when any government has to move quickly - but suitable legislation
could perhaps have stopped the sort of outrageous legislation as the
Robodebt scandal in Australia.
Many see the legacy of NZ First being a wariness over the tail wagging
the dog when a small party holds the 'balance of power' - at least
with the various Peter Dunne parties we knew that Dunne was only
interested in being able to retire as an MP . . .
Any legislation that put in significant change regarding greater
exposure of process would need to be agreed by both major parties;
there is doubt that either would want to agree with anything put up by
the other.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:47:20 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because it >>>>>comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)I would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it
would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the >>>> Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber >>>could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council)
was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members, >>therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political
reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens >>(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not >>foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are only
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by >>coalition governments or minority governments with only >>confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
In Australia, the UK and the USA, the net effect of second houses
appears to be to make legislation more conservative - either through
an election process that favours lower populated rural areas, or for
the UK through an appointment basis that favours 'establishment'
figures - and includes a number of Bishops of the Church of England
(the Conservatives are seeing if there is a way to cut them out!).
There are probably some precautions that could force longer
consideration of legislation, but that can backfire - there are times
when any government has to move quickly - but suitable legislation
could perhaps have stopped the sort of outrageous legislation as the
Robodebt scandal in Australia.
Many see the legacy of NZ First being a wariness over the tail wagging
the dog when a small party holds the 'balance of power' - at least
with the various Peter Dunne parties we knew that Dunne was only
interested in being able to retire as an MP . . .
Any legislation that put in significant change regarding greater
exposure of process would need to be agreed by both major parties;
there is doubt that either would want to agree with anything put up by
the other.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 22:16:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Except that typically a different process is used for the second
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:47:20 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:None of which is relevant to whether NZ should revive the Legislative >Council.
On 10 Jul 2023 05:01:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-07-10, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich will hate this idea. Not because it doesn't have merit but because itI would like to know who the poster is but for some years I have believed that
comes from a blog he's shit scared of :)
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/07/10/should-we-have-a-second-chamber/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-we-have-a-second-chamber
a second house would add real constitutional value to this country.
In the current he puapua and co-governance crisis (yes crisis) I believe it
would, as the poster mentioned, add some real value. There is no question in my
mind that it is a vital force in the UK, on many occasions it has made the
Commons think again. The USA and Australia have similar systems, with different
constitutions. It is not accidental that true democracies have second houses.
I would like to see this carefully considered by the next government, however I
am not convinced we have the mettle to do that.
The article certainly points out why it is needed.
Goverments require checks and balances to do a good job. A second chamber >>>>could be considered to be an ombudsman with some powerful teeth.
It also gives a second opinion, a peer review.
There are good reasons that the 'second chamber' (Legislative Council) >>>was done away with. It is reported as constituting appointed members, >>>therefore whoever controls appointments has a sway. Even if
appointments are not made by elected Governments, it is still a
political body by its nature.
The problem, not mentioned in the article, is that the second chamber
can thwart or obstruct the passage of legislation that comes from
elected Government. This can and does happen purely for political >>>reasons and there is plenty of instances overseas where this happens >>>(particularly with the USA).
The current environment of a single majority-party government was not >>>foreseen with MMP. The problems outlined in the article are only
rearing their head now because we have a majority-party government.
The need for multiple parties to negotiate legislation, whether by >>>coalition governments or minority governments with only >>>confidence-and-supply support, generally averts such bad legislation.
In Australia, the UK and the USA, the net effect of second houses
appears to be to make legislation more conservative - either through
an election process that favours lower populated rural areas, or for
the UK through an appointment basis that favours 'establishment'
figures - and includes a number of Bishops of the Church of England
(the Conservatives are seeing if there is a way to cut them out!).
There are probably some precautions that could force longerIt could also have stopped various laws being passed in NZ by the
consideration of legislation, but that can backfire - there are times
when any government has to move quickly - but suitable legislation
could perhaps have stopped the sort of outrageous legislation as the >>Robodebt scandal in Australia.
current Government, as well as past Labour and National Governments.
However it can always be argued that to do so is to thwart the elected >government. This is justified for those Acts passed by the Government
that were never mentioned in the election manifesto prior to the 2020 >election, such as the Water Reforms.
Many see the legacy of NZ First being a wariness over the tail wagging
the dog when a small party holds the 'balance of power' - at least
with the various Peter Dunne parties we knew that Dunne was only
interested in being able to retire as an MP . . .
What was the point of your Dunne putdown in this thread?
Any legislation that put in significant change regarding greater
exposure of process would need to be agreed by both major parties;
there is doubt that either would want to agree with anything put up by
the other.
What is your point here? I don't recall any Government where National
and Labour did this.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 127:41:21 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,087 |