On “direct” vs “representative” “democracy”. Our “representative democracy” is actually a hybrid system of which referendums are an established feature. The reality is that our system is (or has been) dominated by two rather similar parties that agree to agree on many issues. The agreed positions by definition suit the existing power structures but do not necessarily represent the will of the general population. Greater use of referendums on “big issues”, rather than detailed policy, gives a chance to actually test the will of people to see if they agree with the agreed positions of the dominant parties. Answer the questions: has there ever been a government not lead by either National or Labour? Are there big questions such as size of government that don’t seem to get aired and why would that be?

If you believe the rhetoric, National and Labour supposedly differ on size of government. But what is the actual fact over history. Since falling over 10% during the initiation of neoliberalism by the Lange government, the size of government has fallen from 45% in 1990 to 35% in 2004 and risen back up to 47% in 2010 (GFC) and fallen back to 40%. Despite the rhetoric, there really is not too much to pick between successive governments in this area. It’s a consensus to suit the existing power structures.

There are other countries where this setting is quite different. Fairly clearly, the role of government would start to be quite different if we reduced this number to around 20% or if we raised it to >55%.

Unrealistic & unnecessary

Terrible idea