Political Dreams

Towards a Better Future

I would still prefer to be supporting a more radically left-wing party, but I think pragmatism wins: it is no use voting for a party that has no chance of becoming at least part of the government of the country. 

We also supported Labour members at local elections, most notably Clair Stewart as mayor at three elections.  Clair was the wife of J J Stewart, and had tried to become the candidate in competition with Harry; she was a good mayor, as all the recent ones have been. 

During her first term, I was appointed to the Council sub-committee on Community Development, which advised the Community Development staff and allocated grants from Council funds for community organisations. I worked with Vivian Hutchinson, Helen Armstrong (wife of the National Party MP, John) and Councillor Kim Gilkison, along with Tuti Wetere and a couple of others. 

Some years later, during the term of the Clark Government, I was appointed to the Lotteries Distribution Committee for Taranaki, which again distributed funds for community organisations. Both these committees had very clear and transparent systems for considering applications and allocating the funds. For a couple of years I chaired the Lotteries Committee and met a couple of times a year with the other regional representatives in Wellington. 

I think the Lotteries system of allocation should be extended to cover pokies and TAB and other gambling profits, to ensure that it is all fair and transparently so.

 ____________________

I am convinced that we need to continue to develop our democracy. The work which was started by the 1832 Reform Act in Britain has not been completed. 

First of all, the right to vote should be extended to everyone.  It is unsatisfactory that 25% of our population are debarred from voting, and I am referring to those under 18 years of age. 

Many of our schoolchildren are well-informed enough to cast a vote, and those who are thought too young would of course have their vote cast by their caregiver. 

Throughout my lifetime successive governments have changed rules so that couples with families have a harder row to hoe than others; parties make speeches about family-friendly policies but do not usually introduce them: Family Benefit has gone, couples jointly paying Income Tax has gone, families struggling with disability still have not been given all the help they need. 

I am sure this is partly because parties do not have to consider the extra votes that children should be wielding. 

Secondly the system should be changed to put even more emphasis on consensus decision making, rather than parties just having to please the bare majority. MMP was a step in the right direction.  But policy decisions should take into account the views of every group in society, not just the majority ones. 

Abandoning unanimous jury verdicts is a step in the wrong direction: if one or two jurors are not convinced, how can anyone say there is no reasonable doubt? My experience with consensus on committees is positive; lack of consensus usually means some of the group have not fully understood. 

And thirdly I am utterly convinced that the Monarchy sends the wrong message to everyone, ourselves and foreigners. Monarchy is a top-down system, democracy should be bottom-up! How can you work with what everyone wants to happen if all your symbols of nationhood are shouting: top-down, top-down! 

That will do for a start.