I think Key, Hide & Co are beginning to feel the heat. After a week and a half of submissions on the third super city bill it is clear Aucklanders are as opposed to this assault on democracy as they were when the Nats did their last impression of listening to the public halfway through last year.
But when the Herald gets stuck into them. And all the mayors. And the Employers and Manufacturers Association. And the Chamber of Commerce. Surely it gets a little harder to write off the critics as rent-a-mob? Perhaps not. Rodney Hide was on the radio this morning criticising yesterday’s rally outside the select committee hearings which was attended by Labour and Green MPs, and calling the 150 Aucklanders who protested ’sad’.
They are sad alright but not in the sense Hide means. They are really sad about what this Government is doing to our democracy.
Hide accused me of politicising the select committee process by organising the rally. He is joined by ACT supporter Michael Bassett, himself a former Minister of Local Government, who has written about all this, kindly sending me a copy, in which he says it is a constitutional outrage that an MP on the select committee should be taking part in a public protest outside the committee’s hearings. He is also unhappy with the Herald’s coverage.
My first response is that it is rich beyond belief for Hide to accuse anyone else of politicising the super city process. Hello Rodney? Aren’t you the guy who denied Aucklanders a referendum on the super city? Who invited them to make submissions on Maori representation when your threat to resign had already convinced John Key to drop Maori seats as an option? Who rammed the first two bills through under urgency? Who gets the power under this third bill to hand pick the directors of the powerful commercial structures who will run 90% of Council operations?
Secondly, I have always considered it an MP’s job to fight for what the people want. The select committee is not a court, and I am not a judge. When a Government blocks its ears to the public, I think it is perfectly in order for MPs and citizens to take up the right to peaceful protest.
What do you think?
Click this next link to see Michael Bassett’s comments in full.
The Herald and Constitutional Propriety
Has anyone else noticed that the New Zealand Herald seems to have thrown constitutional propriety to the winds? In today1s paper on page A7 there is a photo of Labour’s Auckland affairs spokesman, Phil Twyford, standing outside the meeting of the select committee hearing submissions yesterday on the latest bill dealing with the Super City. In the audience is the same small group of the usual suspects who have been tracking around the city for years opposing everything that any government, Labour or National, has planned for the city. The reporter covering the story – you guessed it – is Bernard Orsman. He is the one who was censured last year by the Press Council for a serious misdemeanour. This time Orsman reports that yesterday’s demo was ‘organized by Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, who accused the Government of blocking its ears to cries for a different kind of Super City’.
Let’s leave aside the fact that most of the submissions opposing the super city are from the same small group who last year broke up public meetings called by MPs to discuss the super city. I witnessed them at work with my own eyes. Yesterday they were lending themselves (temporarily) to Twyford.
Also on hand, of course, was the crusading Orsman, who is just as determined as they are to deny due process to the legislation. Believe it or not, Orsman just happened to have a photographer alongside him too. And the Herald was happy to carry the beat-up. Twyford must have thought all his birthdays had come at once!
The real issue in this case is not this disgraceful journalism. Neither Orsman nor the Herald’s editor seems to realize that a constitutional outrage was being perpetrated. Twyford who was trying his hand at rabble-rousing is a member of the parliamentary select committee who were meant to be meeting inside to hear the submissions, and then to deliberate on them. Popping outside during lunch or afternoon tea to stir up a rag tail and bob tail army is completely inappropriate in such a situation. Just imagine if a judge hearing a court case decided to duck out during the break, megaphone in hand, to stir up supporters of the defendant appearing before him/her. Even the Herald just might realize this to be constitutionally improper? Possibly even Bernard Orsman?
Today’s story for the Herald should not have been about the views of the tiny number of crusaders who are permanently in opposition mode to change. Instead, the Herald should have concentrated on the need to remind legislators that they must not engage in behaviour like Twyford’s. At the very least, Labour leader Phil Goff should remove him from the select committee. He has demonstrated an inability to understand his role as an MP and to act appropriately. His responsibility is to listen to submissions, act fairly, and not to pre-judge anything.
Michael Bassett
Formerly Labour’s Minister of Local Government
(Deleted. While I understand the sentiment, that kind of language is not acceptable on this blog, Grant)
Good work Phil!
TO an extent I get what Michael is saying
Good work Michael! He makes a very valid point.
I have always considered it an MP’s job to fight for what the people want.
Sorry Phil, but it’s tosh like this that gives politicians of all persuasions a bad name.
What you really mean is that you’ll fight for what people want as long as it coincides with your own agenda. And if it doesn’t you’ll at best patronise the people by telling them they’re misguided, and at worst accuse them of being rednecks.
In the recent past there was never a more solid message sent to MPs than the message that a huge majority of the public didn’t want Sue Bradford’s anti smacking bill to be passed.
I didn’t notice you, or any of your colleagues, fighting for what the people wanted at that time.
That’s ok. It’s the way politics in our system works and I’m not arguing that it should change and you should become delegates rather than representatives. I’m just pleading with you to stop coming out with such bovine waste when it suits you. The public can smell it a mile off.
George I think you make a great point. However, while I completely understand the point you were making re the anti-smacking legislation you have to remember that the ‘people’ were actually swept away by media’s interpretation and subsequent labeling of it as an anti smacking Bill. It was actually an amendment to s59 of the Crimes Act – that is, the removal of the defense such as those people who beat their children half to death with a hose then claim it was “reasonable force”. While the amendment itself was a little on the extreme side it was never about smacking or even the prevention of abuse, it was about making sure that such people don’t get to use the law as their defense for their abhorrent actions. But yes, all in all I think your observation that our respected MPs only “fight for what people want as long as it coincides with [their] own agenda” is absolutely correct. And this is a cross party issue from ACC issues to the amendment to s59 to a referendum on MMP. I personally believe that political expediency is what it is all about and that such things as integrity have no place where our ‘democracy’ is concerned.
It’s a pity Labour didn’t have the same concern for democracy when the Electoral Finance Act was put through.
So it’s sad in the sense it lacks credibility.
Ben seems to think the Election Finance Act was about ‘democracy’. Didnt notice it had anything to do with your voting or creating unelected boards. Oh yeah you had to register in the previous year rather the 3 months before an election ( which is a breeze compared the US requirements for election funding)
@ George – Yeah, Section 59 has made a huge difference hasn’t it… So many parents locked up and all…. If anyone should be pleaded with to stop talking ‘bovine waste’ it is the scare-mongerers who didn’t bother to understand the legislation before it was passed, and seemingly still don’t. What impact has it had on your life? I’ll wager none, so change the record.
@ Phil – I admire your tenacity in the face of what is now, almost certainly, a lost cause. It is true that Aucklanders are beginning to understand that Hide’s ’super city’ model has significant flaws, but it is all too little, too late. Unfortunately the complete lack of civic awareness and engagement in this country means that the outcry will only come once the new structure has been imposed.
In the matter of the Electoral Finance Act Ben, just because David Farrar said it was an attack on democracy doesn’t make it so.
The core of the Act made it illegal for anyone to spend more than NZ$12,000 criticising or supporting a political party without registering with the Electoral Commission. Nobody was denied the ability to speak out, they just had to own their words. This legislation was not out of step with that of the United Kingdom and Canada.
It has been altered by the present government, allowing the abuses of the ‘Hollow men’ to return. And of course, there are no safeguards to prevent third parties and political parties
As for an assault on democracy, the structures being proposed for the new Auckland ‘Supercity’ are stripping elected representives of power and handing that power to appointed businesses. That has to be a worry.
The thing to be considered here is that the Supercity legislation is in fact major constitutional change. The way in which we are governed, and the way in which laws will made in Auckland are being fundamentally changed by the legislation.
Usually change of a constitutional nature would be accompanied by more public consultation. In this case however the public have demonstrably been locked out of having a meaningful say. The earlier Bill that set up the overall structure was rammed through parliament under urgency, the submission period for this Bill “co-incided” with the Christmas/New Year holiday period, and decsions about the powers of the Local Boards have been outsourced to the unelected ATA.
Given all of this, people have no option other than peaceful protest to have their say. Legitimate avenues have been closed off, and the alternative of just lying down and accepting this theft of democracy is frankly, cowardly. Good on everyone who turned up yesterday.
B anksie – do you have any comment to make on the substance of my comment, or is that rant your final words on the subject?
Phil, is this the same Rortney Hide who was selling tickets to hear him reveal local government policy? And he has the gall to accuse you of politicising your office? Perk buster turned rorter-in-chief. Hypocrite. And you are correct that his tawdry little super city scam is coming apart at the seams. Seems everything he touches these days turns to dust?
Michael Bassett?
1. Dislikes Labour Party for perceived injustices perpetrated against him by long gone colleagues.
2. Dislikes Helen Clark for – reason above.
3. Dislikes anyone associated with H.C. for – reason above.
4. Has devoted his life (almost) to retaliating against the Labour Party, Helen Clark and those associated for – reason above.
Need I say more?
In was the Electoral Finance Bill that was argued to be an attack on democracy. And given that it would have banned MPs from issuing press releases, it’s not completely unreasonable view to view it as attacking democracy.
@ George – Your contribution is an unfair attack on John Key, who supported the legislation and voted for it in parliament, rejected the outcome of the referendum, and kept the legislation as it was when it was passed. To accuse a man who is on 60 percent of the polls of being out of step with the oublic is simply unbelievable.
For goodness sake, B_anksie.
Phil Twyford came out with that rubbish about it being an MPs job to fight for what the people want.
I used public opinion on S59 (probably the most extreme example of homogeneous public opinion in recent years) to show that MPs only take notice of what the people want when it suits them.
I claimed that this was a failing that all politicians had, regardless of their political colour.
I didn’t make any comment pro- or anti- the S59 amendment, other than to point out the huge and consistant majority against it which makes it a good example of what I’m saying.
That majority continues, so on this particular issue John Key, Mr-60%-Popular or not, is at odds with public opinion. Unbelievable or not!
I fail to see how either of your postings so far relate to anything I’ve said.
@ George – A substantive comment that deserves a response. Perhaps it was a little glib to say that an MP’s job is to fight for what the people want. Let me explain. Clearly MPs are not always going to be able to represent the will of the people:
1. It is not always easy to tell what the people’s will is. Public opinion is often divided and sometimes contradictory.
2. MPs are bound by loyalty to the party they represent. As a Labour MP I am bound by caucus loyalty and commitment to the values and policies of the party under whose banner I was elected.
3. There is also considerable pressure on electorate MPs to represent the views of their constituents.
4. Any MP worth their salt also has to balance these factors against their own conscience and beliefs as to what is right.
But even given those pretty major qualifications, any politician and any party that doesn’t go into bat for the interests of “the people” or any subset they seek to represent is not going to be around for long.
On the Auckland super city, this isn’t difficult. Public opinion is remarkably united: two-thirds of Aucklanders feel ignored, a clear majority of people don’t want any part of the super city, and 70-80% dont want their assets privatised.
National-ACT have the numbers in the House and are ramming their agenda through. Who else does the Auckland public have to turn to but the parliamentary opposition?
Labour’s position is in my view clear, and consistent with our policies and principles. We supported most of what the Royal Commission recommended but the Government has hijacked the process to push through an anti-democratic assault on local government.
Excellent work Phil, please, please, please, organise (along with the other Auckland Labour MPs) a Saturday march down Queen St, meeting at QE2 square and ending by Aotea…
I never been so angry about something the government is doing in my life and my feet are itchy…
Another well written and thought out column by ex-Labour MP and Labour Minister Michael Bassett.
It may do you some good to read and understand what he is saying. But then again probably most of Labour consider Michael Bassett a traitor.
Phil, please be a little honest.
1. You were never elected, and haven’t been yet, you were appointed from the party list. It is true you were elected by some mechanism within the Labour Party but we both know what I’m talking about.
2. Just because Michael Bassett says something doesn’t mean automatically that what he says is wrong. That seems to be a default position of Labour party members.
3.30-50 people protesting in a city of 1.4 million is statistically irrelevant. In fact like the s59 protests and the ones against the EFB which numbered in their thousands, politicians just really vote how their party instructs them. The things they have a free vote on are usually trivialities and never something as important as freedom of speech/press or something constituional.
4.Your answer 1. above is a typical politicians cop out to a hard question. It would be nice to actually see politicians actually stand for something. There is an old saying that if you stand for everything you will fall for everything.
5.your point 3 above is relevant how? You are list MP, you have no constituents save the will of the party that put you there. If you really have constituents why then do you try desperately to get a constituency nomination?
6.MPs should never balance anything against their conscience and beliefs. To do so is to prostitute those beliefs and conscience. Those things to my mind is what makes people of principle obvious, and why no politician ever is one. Mostly they are disingenuous at best, outright liars at worst.
7.You say that 2/3 feel ignored and 70% don’t want assets sold. If that is the case why could you not even muster even 50 people at your protest? Since where is any of the Super City legislation does it mention privatisation of even a single asset? Nowhere is where…you keep banging on about parks and libraries being sold. Does this fit under disingenuous or does it fit elsewhere in my aforementioned range?
If politicians told the truth more often than not then you may find that people would take what they have to say a whole lot more seriously.
Wow, a whole discourse with not a rude world, I sit stunned as I finish this.
Ditto Jeremy
Hi Anne
Thanks Phil – a much more satisfactory exposition of the role of the MP.
If it was just to ‘do what the people want’ we could replace you all with a load of on-line polls, couldn’t we!
Hi Spud
@ Whaleoil – How did you get in here?! Our moderating system must have broken down.
At the risk of ignoring DPF’s rule about the risks of rolling in the mud with you, I will respond given what an effort it must have been for you to write a long comment like that without obscenity.
1. I was elected as a Labour list MP. When people party vote Labour they do it knowing who is on the Labour list. That confers democratic legitimacy. But I recognise that I am elected only because of standing under the Labour banner and that underlines my accountability to the party and what it stands for. (My point 2 above).
2. You might say that, but the two do seem to go together.
3. 150 attended the rally. Read the Herald report. The Newstalk ZB item was filed before the notified start time. We live in a party democracy. It wouldnt work without party discipline. Do you want to get rid of parties? I would argue that in political systems without parties it is far more difficult for voters to make coherent choices. I read your description of the rally on your post this evening. It wasn’t as funny as Tau Henare likening it to a meeting of the Country Womens Institute.
4. I stand by my point about it often being hard to discern the will of the people. Anyway, you want politicians to take a stand. That is what I am doing on the Government’s shafting of Auckland democracy. Why don’t you take a close look at the National members on the select committee? The ones that actually pay attention and engage with members of the public are falling over themselves to feign sympathy with people who are totally hostile to what their Government is doing. Talk about gutless.
5. My point 3 was not about me, but about MPs generally.
6. If you dont think MPs have to balance their principles and beliefs against the real world then democratic politics must seem a strange thing to you.
7. I have no reason to think the Herald poll was inaccurate. Do you? You want evidence of a privatisation agenda: look no further than the third super city bill’s repeal of the requirement for a binding ballot of Aucklanders before the Council can flog off the Ports of Auckland. There is only one reason you’d do that.
Wow,
Phil’s a llllllist MP? 
I suppose there are no LIST MPs in National or Act.
Phil doesn’t have to have an electorate to do a good job.
Don’t give Slater the attention…
Michale bassett makes me laugh. If ever there was a democracy-hating, self-serving “rent-a-mob”, Bassett can be relied upon to be among them. He opposed MMP here in NZ. He oposed it in Ontario, Canada in 2007. He arrogantly denigrates anyone who disagrees with him and rarely addresses the substantive issues other than perhaps to distort them beyond recognition.
I’ve been watching Bassett for 30 years and I’m sad that anyone listens to arrogant, dismissive democracy-haters like him.
@Whaleoil
Do you know how long it would take if on election day we had to elect every MP individually? The people vote for the party according to their values and the party picks its members according to the members values matching the parties. I
matching the parties values* sorry half way through writing my comment it randomly posted
Anyway what is with all the personal attacks on Phil? It looks very poor TBH, he is making a perfectly valid argument, Rodney Hide denied a referendum on the people of auckland voting for a super city, he’s pissed off and is being vocal about it because it’s suppression of Democracy. And instead of arguing his point like a reasonable disagreeing person would you try to make it invalid by making HIM seem undemocratic… I’m sorry but the only way you could make him look like a hippocrit in this scenario is if he denied a referendum to the people over something as big as a super city.
@George
To me saying that ALL politicians are only pursueing their own agenda and only support the people to get more votes is… well its discrimination. It’s taking a specific group of people and attributing a bad aspect to ALL of them. Every politician will do things differently and uniquely just like every other human being on the planet will. They are politicians but they are still human, when they join parliment they don’t just become robots with no human emotion, no passion and no sense of duty. Can I ask your profession so I can make a bold personal attack on you too?
And I seriously doubt that every politician pursues this career just for the pleasure of it when they have to deal with gits like you two every day.
[...] Perhaps Hide is starting to realise how deeply unpopular the Supercity process is. Apparently the strain is showing on the ACT MPs on the Supercity select committee, with bizarre attacks on members of the public [...]
@ Dylan : I work in IT. I do it for the money. Please feel free to make any personal attacks you feel appropriate. It says a lot about the substance of your views.
I don’t think it’s discriminatory to suggest that politicians are pursuing their own agendas. That’s the very reason they’ve devoted their lives to being politicians in the first place! They believe that their opinions and ways of addressing issues are superior to those of others that they’ve been prepared to invest a great deal of time and engery into getting elected, and once in a position of influence use that to push forward policies aligned with those views. I can’t recall any serious politican who stood on a platform of letting majority opinion direct them all the time.
When the majority diverges from a politician’s own view/agenda they use a wealth of words to justify why they’re not going to listen to public opinion – normally variations on one of three themes:
a) The public are inadequately informed and when everything has been explained they’ll align with me. Until that point I’m going with the informed minority.
b) The public are being deliberately misinformed by others and so I can disregard what is a spurious reflection of supposed opinion.
c) The public’s opinion is wrong and needs to be changed. I am leading that process.
I have no problem with this; I merely took Phil to task for suggesting that the job of all MPs was to fight for what the people want. He himself responded by accepting that this was a glib statement. Why do you have a problem with it?
Going by Whaleoil’s contribution, the extreme right must be beside themselves with worry now that the true horror of their carefully planned and long cherished corporate takeover of Auckland is finally being revealed to Aucklanders. They prefer to work in the shadows and behind closed doors, plotting and scheming. Their plan to hide the truth under spin and speed might just have worked, if they hadn’t over-reached. Now they are in full damage control mode, which of course includes attacking any critic on a personal level, undermining their legitimacy, chipping away at their credibility, running faux scandals, and digging and dishing the dirt. Nasty bunch, really.
As a mainlander:
Its just Auckland, who south of the bombay hills cares
Actually Waterboy, I’ve lived South of the Bombay Hills all my life. In fact I’m from the Waikato, so the Bombays are a definite landmark of identy for me (though all that will be history with a SuperCity).
I am concerned about this because Auckland’s reforms could be used as a model for the rest of the country. And don’t think that the model will not be used for amalgamating councils and restricting democracy in rural areas as well.
I would be surprised if Hide’s vision is only about Auckland, and the people in the National caucus empowering Hide – a lot of them are mainlanders.
Hi Phil, you are doing a great job “making a stand where a stand needs to be made, for the people”. It is not or should I say, should not be about the Politicians, it is about the people and what the people want. Just because there were only 50, 150, 200 or 300 (there are over 6000 in North Rodney who do not want to be part of the Super City) people at the protest on a working day, the fact remains, are we “the people” happy with what National/Act want to do to our city? I personally, am not. And, although I had planned to attend the protest, I was unable to. I applaud you Phil for helping us “the people” (the ones that pay for ALL our government personnel) make a stand and for giving us the democratic representation that we all deserve. Thank you!
Come on Phil, you know as well as I do that there weren’t 150 there. Just because a repeater at the Herald says so doesn’t make it so. Even 150 is statiscally irrelevant in a city of 1.4 million. You do the math and try to convince yourself otherwise.
I know these days that you are probably pulling the biggest crowd of anyone in the Labour Party, but that still doesn’t mean it matters.
Tribalism is really appalling, I tried to make my answer to your original post as party neutral as possible. Just for once I’d like to see politicians actually say what they believe not what they have been told to believe.
The rest of your answers simply prove exactly what I was saying. Basically all politicians venal, obstructive and dis-ingenuous as well as excessively tribal.
Oh and how did I get in here, well I followed the draconian rules of having to be obsequious to the hosts, and the small matter that the taxpayers provide this blog, along with the salaries of the authors. On the other hand you are always welcome at my blog, which I pay for out of my own pocket. Just don’t expect any deferential treatment of obsequiousness on my part of my readers. {Whale: To be clear this blog was developed, and is paid for, by MPs personally, i.e. no Parliamentary funds, but ‘out of our own pockets’ to coin your phrase And before you say it, yes I know, our salaries come from the public purse. Grant}
(And on the moderation issue – not swearing and not abusing people means your comments get up. I understand this is a bit of a problem for you but congratulations for learning. Trevor)
I thought the most hilarious sentence in Bassett’s comments to be:
“His responsibility is to listen to submissions, act fairly, and not to pre-judge anything.”
That would have been reasonable a few years ago, but this government has demonstrated that it does not itself listen to submissions, and that it certainly does not have an open mind. When decisions are announced before ‘consultation’ has been completed; when so much legislation is pushed through without consultation, when it is evident that no submissions have altered the set minds of the promoters of legislation; when that legislation is itself misrepresented by its promoters, Bassett is outraged by a politician doing his job in the lunch-break?
Ed: Three words to remind you of;
Electoral Finance Act
Its fair comment that there has been constitutional outrage perpetrated on this Bill – but not by Phil Twyford and the protestors. The outrage is in the legislation itself, and its companion Bills, that:
- set aside Local Govt Act protections
- alienated from the democratic process via “CCO’s” many normal functions of local governemtns – local road signage for goodness sake!
- has as a package been rammed through Parliament without due process:
- has been accompanied by gerrymandering devices like (ealier) attempts to at large councillors, unfair voter allocation under draft boundaries; higher camnpaign finance limits and so on – all coincidentally leaning the result to the Right;
- Michelle Boag et all stacking the staff of the ATA and pending council with National staffers and acolytes.
I could go on.
Now remind me what Phil T’s great sin was Dr Bassset? Oh yes, speaking to a protest outside a public select committee hearing. Puhlease.
How many MP’s have not addressed a protest group outsside parlimanet or had representations from them as a list or electorate MP?
Dr Bassett has two problems, the first with the “authority” of those with a right wing agenda being challenged, and the second the general accountability of government to the people. Probably because he knows how unpopular his own right wing opinions are.
I know for a fact that Michael Bassett is really Deidre Barlow’s mother Blanche on Coronation St – listen to the voice if you doubt me. Good for you Phil.
Whaleoil – Not sure if it is possible to defame Cameron but this is abusive anyway. Have a two week holiday. Trevor
Banksie, thank you for defaming me on the Labour Party MP blog I can now enjoin them in the defamation.
Got rid of Banksie”s comment. Look forward to seeing your security for costs presentation. In fact I reckon there will be a queue. Trevor
Banksie – What a pathetic statement. I’m surprised and saddened that got past the moderation queue. So come on mods – Im sure that dosnt come close to the standards you state you wish to uphold on red alert – or is it open slather if you are having a crack at Whaleoil or Farrar?
@George
The very point of Democracy is that the interest of the people come first no matter what. Wether the politician does it for his own interest or for his passion for the peoples, they have to get their vote by giving them what they want. If a party or politician want to do something of their own agenda but the people disagree they can’t do it because they wont get the votes and its as simple as that. Sure politicians take on an opinion because they think it’s right and fight for it but the main flaw in your argument is that some people actually share some politicians views on the world and believe they are right WHICH IS WHY THEY VOTE FOR THEM!
Of course george some politicians are exceptions, like Mr. Hide here who is contributing alot to the super city whilst his party only recieved around 5% of the vote (one of the probs of MMP) and is refusing Auckland a referendum. Yeah he is one example of a politician thinking he knows best and ignoring the people outright WHILE not receiving many votes which just shows he isn’t supported by majority, but it is not EVERY politician that does this and you are dreaming some fanatic and radical dream if you think that’s true. I want to go into politics because I am passionate for my country, for history and economics, and your comment that ALL politicians go into it for the personal pursuit IS discrminiation because your trying to generalise them and it has angered me deeply, not every politician is the same because not every person is the same and I don’t see how people think it’s ok to make comments about that to politicians but not to any other group of people.
@Whaleoil can you adress my first post too and maybe argue the blog topic rather than just attacking Phil? The way I see it the only way you can make him seem wrong here is if you show to me how it’s ok that Rodney Hide is denying auckland a referendum on the supercity.
(P.S I am an aucklander and hate the idea too so you can count that at least 151)
Dylan – so few votes (two ticks every three years) – so many issues…
When you make your mark on the ballot paper you encapsulate in it a complex synthesis of unique views across the whole universe of issues local, domestic and international.
Hence it’s unlikely that many people agree with their party on every issue. They may even (perish the thought) prefer the other side on some. Certainly on a lot of social issues many Labour voters hold views different to MPs and party activists. A few Labour MPs might have been against S59 reform. Huge numbers of Labour voters were.
This sort of thing leads to a position where politicians have to make judgement calls if they hold views different to the majority – will going against what the people want on an issue cost me or not?
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not suggesting that most politicians are in the game to line their own pockets. Despite what lots of people say I’d wager that very few are, and that the MPs who visit this blog will confirm that – for all parties.
What I am saying is that they’re in it for what they believe in – it’s what you’re telling me yourself, for goodness sake.
You have (clearly) very strong beliefs, and you’re prepared to do the (very) hard yards to put yourself into a position of political influence. But what will happen when your notion of what’s good for the people/the country/the planet is hugely at odds with that of the people themselves. With no disrespect whatsoever (honestly) I suspect (without knowing you, granted) that you’d come up with a variation on one of the three themes I outlined earlier to explain why you were ignoring the people just this once.
Dammit, I missed Banksie’s comment. Interesting to see Whaeloil’s reaction, though, having seen his own blog a few times. Something about pots and kettles comes to mind.
Keep up the excellent work Phil et al. Thank you for keeping Aucklanders in what seems to be the ever decreasing circle. I, for one Aucklander applaud your efforts. I will be popping over the road to congratulate your fine party when Mr Goff visits on Friday evening.Long may these protests continue.