Simon Bridges

[reigns]

Another view of Simon Bridges.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/18-03-...eans-to-me

"My reaction? Don’t let the Beehive doors hit you on the way out.

Simon Bridges’ departure from politics, to me, is the exit of the most prominent politician to consistently vote against the rights of queer people in my adult lifetime. He might have equivocated about his vote against marriage equality in Express magazine years later, saying that he “got it wrong” and “New Zealand has moved on”, but the ink on his vote against the conversion therapy bill is barely dry. The bill, which has now thankfully passed, bans practices that aim to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

What I can speak to are these facts: Simon Bridges voted consistently against the rights of queer people. When presented with the option to make things equitable for queer people in our society, he chose not to."

Actually, having read that now.. While I still hopes he enjoys being relieved of the pressure of politics, I am quite comfortable with him no longer being in parliament.

Whatever his reasons (I believe him when he says he is just looking for a change), he's had a pretty long innings in Parliament and he's achieved a lot for someone his age. I haven't been his biggest fan (had policy advisor friends who, when he was first starting out, were extremely critical of his competency) but he's had his fair share of knocks and detractors. I know that comes with the job so for now, at least, I hope he gets a decent wave of relief on exiting politics and can focus on enjoying his personal life a bit more.

Wonder if he was more suited to just being a local constituent MP. There's nothing wrong with just focusing on your electorate, and it's way more useful than spending large parts of your day bossing about West Coast list MPs.

On a national level, he was pretty ineffectual. Probably operated best when he was angry, but whenever he did, he came across as a petulant toddler throwing his toys out of the playpen. Optically, it's not what people were looking for in a leader.

I'm personally of the opinion that electorates should only be contested by independent candidates. I'd rather not have electorate MPs be dictated to by anyone other than the constituents they represent.

[Lilith7]

Another view of Simon Bridges.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/18-03-...eans-to-me

"My reaction? Don’t let the Beehive doors hit you on the way out.

Simon Bridges’ departure from politics, to me, is the exit of the most prominent politician to consistently vote against the rights of queer people in my adult lifetime. He might have equivocated about his vote against marriage equality in Express magazine years later, saying that he “got it wrong” and “New Zealand has moved on”, but the ink on his vote against the conversion therapy bill is barely dry. The bill, which has now thankfully passed, bans practices that aim to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

What I can speak to are these facts: Simon Bridges voted consistently against the rights of queer people. When presented with the option to make things equitable for queer people in our society, he chose not to."

Actually, having read that now.. While I still hopes he enjoys being relieved of the pressure of politics, I am quite comfortable with him no longer being in parliament.

Wonder if he was more suited to just being a local constituent MP. There's nothing wrong with just focusing on your electorate, and it's way more useful than spending large parts of your day bossing about West Coast list MPs.

On a national level, he was pretty ineffectual. Probably operated best when he was angry, but whenever he did, he came across as a petulant toddler throwing his toys out of the playpen. Optically, it's not what people were looking for in a leader.

I'm personally of the opinion that electorates should only be contested by independent candidates. I'd rather not have electorate MPs be dictated to by anyone other than the constituents they represent.

That could be interesting, & we might also cut down on the number of MP's from political parties while we're at it.

[reigns]

That could be interesting, & we might also cut down on the number of MP's from political parties while we're at it.

Yeah, I was thinking that it would sort of be like returning to a bicameral parliament but not really.. Where the Electorates would sit in Parliament as a crossbench of independents whose sole job is to vote how their electorate demands, rather than along their own party line.

Party List MPs would be tasked with developing and leading policy/legislative change and bringing it to the house for all to vote on, which would mean Parties would have to find ways to make policies palatable to the majority of Electorates for it to pass. They can't just rely on their own numbers or that of a coalition.

Then, electorate voters may push for a by-election if they can get 40% of their electorate to sign a petition demanding it. That should hopefully keep electorate MPs in line and not have them go rogue, getting cosy with one political party in return for favours.

And, outside of electorate changes, I want the voting age abolished.

[Lilith7]

That could be interesting, & we might also cut down on the number of MP's from political parties while we're at it.

Yeah, I was thinking that it would sort of be like returning to a bicameral parliament but not really.. Where the Electorates would sit in Parliament as a crossbench of independents whose sole job is to vote how their electorate demands, rather than along their own party line.

Party List MPs would be tasked with developing and leading policy/legislative change and bringing it to the house for all to vote on, which would mean Parties would have to find ways to make policies palatable to the majority of Electorates for it to pass. They can't just rely on their own numbers or that of a coalition.

Then, electorate voters may push for a by-election if they can get 40% of their electorate to sign a petition demanding it. That should hopefully keep electorate MPs in line and not have them go rogue, getting cosy with one political party in return for favours.

And, outside of electorate changes, I want the voting age abolished.

That could work well for the most part. There might be problems, though if the needs of two or more electorates happen to mean they're always likely to be opposed to each other - that would cause conflict.

And I can't agree re voting age, if only because human brains aren't fully developed until around the mid 20's.

[reigns]

Yeah, I was thinking that it would sort of be like returning to a bicameral parliament but not really.. Where the Electorates would sit in Parliament as a crossbench of independents whose sole job is to vote how their electorate demands, rather than along their own party line.

Party List MPs would be tasked with developing and leading policy/legislative change and bringing it to the house for all to vote on, which would mean Parties would have to find ways to make policies palatable to the majority of Electorates for it to pass. They can't just rely on their own numbers or that of a coalition.

Then, electorate voters may push for a by-election if they can get 40% of their electorate to sign a petition demanding it. That should hopefully keep electorate MPs in line and not have them go rogue, getting cosy with one political party in return for favours.

And, outside of electorate changes, I want the voting age abolished.

That could work well for the most part. There might be problems, though if the needs of two or more electorates happen to mean they're always likely to be opposed to each other - that would cause conflict.

And I can't agree re voting age, if only because human brains aren't fully developed until around the mid 20's.

Ahhh, I'll make a new thread for the voting age stuff, Lillith! <3 Haven't had a good bit of banter about politics in a long time, to be fair. Been keeping off social media and forums.

I do hear you about the conflict between electorates. I think that would be a feature, not a bug.. Haha.

[Lilith7]

That could work well for the most part. There might be problems, though if the needs of two or more electorates happen to mean they're always likely to be opposed to each other - that would cause conflict.

And I can't agree re voting age, if only because human brains aren't fully developed until around the mid 20's.

Ahhh, I'll make a new thread for the voting age stuff, Lillith! <3 Haven't had a good bit of banter about politics in a long time, to be fair. Been keeping off social media and forums.

I do hear you about the conflict between electorates. I think that would be a feature, not a bug.. Haha.

Now that is a point I'd entirely failed to consider - it has potential for entertainment, surely!