parliament

Changes to parliamentary procedure that Simon Bridges helped craft and then explicitly championed while in Government now appear to be bad for National in opposition. So Simon Bridges thinks that they are the worst attack on democratic rights we have ever seen.

In today's NZ Herald, National's shadow leader of the House was frantically sounding out a tocsin to warn of the danger of looming dictatorship: 

New Zealand’s electoral system gives it a parliament which represents voters. Its winner-takes-all executive government, however, remains unrepresentative.* (This is a follow on from the earlier column on coalitions.)

This paper tries to evaluate various coalitions on the basis of their political ideologies. It uses the scores given to parties by the TVNZ website Vote-Compass, which identifies two dimensions: Right-Left and Social Conservative-Social Progressive.

If Murray McCully told Parliament that MFAT told him legal risk justified the Saudi Sheep deal, then why does MFAT say they never told him that?

One of the problems for an incumbent Government seeking re-election is that, no matter your best intentions and efforts over the previous term, there will be skeletons hiding in the closet.

Winston Peters says his price for government is two binding referendums. If we believe him, which we probably shouldn't, then let's note some more problems with his proposal. 

I've already penned something for RNZ's website (which I then fleshed out a bit more over on The Spinoff) as

It's a quirky part of our lawmaking processes that important legislative developments may depend upon the right token getting pulled out of a biscuit tin. Today it was the turn of Euthanasia/Aid in Dying and Medicinal Marijuana to come out.

I commence with a quick civics lesson, for anyone who needs it.