The Dim-Post

February 8, 2014

Scenario

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 6:11 am

This chart shows the aggregated poll results for National vs Labour-Greens adjusted for poll bias: combined20140208There’s been a bit of talk recently about Winston Peters being ‘Kingmaker’ after the election. But if something like this happens Peters won’t have much power at all. If National polls around 40% and Peters polls around 5-6% then even a National+Peters+ACT+United Future+Maori Party coalition won’t have enough seats in Parliament to form a government. The only viable coalition is Labour+Greens+Peters.

Obviously that changes if National gives an electorate seat to Colin Craig and he pulls in ~2.5%. Then we see the very sane, sensible National-Colin Craig-Winston Peters-ACT-United Future-Maori Party coalition running things.

About these ads

53 Comments »

  1. What about a Labour-NZF coalition with Green support on confidence and supply?

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 8, 2014 @ 6:48 am

  2. We ll know the intelligent, informed voters of Epsom are special (as in mentally retarded) little drones who will vote for whoever they are instructed to. But it is an open question as to how the good people of East Coast Bays might react to the extension of National’s Epsom gerrymander onto them.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 8:19 am

  3. Why is it that whenever left wingers complain about dodgy coattail deals, they refer to the voters as ‘the good people of…’.

    Comment by alex — February 8, 2014 @ 8:25 am

  4. True Alex. Not all people from Epsom are good.

    http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/weird/10929836._People_in_Epsom_viewing_colossal_amounts_of_porn_/

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 8:28 am

  5. But the “good people of Epsom….” prefix is a meme that was started, I think, by Rodney Hide as code for doing what they were told in an electoral jack up.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 8:30 am

  6. Calling people who vote for parties you dislike mentally retarded? Integrity move, Sanc.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 8, 2014 @ 9:03 am

  7. Just calling Epsom’s voting patterns as I see them.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 9:08 am

  8. So just for the record, do you consider everybody who votes for conservative parties mentally deficient, or just those who vote tactically?

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 8, 2014 @ 9:19 am

  9. Pretty much all of them, TBH. Although intensive socialist re-education of their children means we only have to write off one generation. Well, not really totally write off. That White Sea canal won’t dig itself, so conservative voters will still have some use.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 9:23 am

  10. But if something like this happens Peters won’t have much power at all. If National polls around 40% and Peters polls around 5-6% then even a National+Peters+ACT+United Future+Maori Party coalition won’t have enough seats in Parliament to form a government. The only viable coalition is Labour+Greens+Peters.

    If National polls the 40% you suggest, they would get 51 seats in a 121 seat House. New Zealand First at 6% would add 8 seats. With one seat from each of ACT and United Future, you’ve a majority. You don’t even need to include the Maori Party in this coalition. Your scenario gives Peters all the power: neither National, nor Labour+Greens could govern without him, either could govern with him.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — February 8, 2014 @ 9:45 am

  11. But isn’t the conumdrum always been that NZ First won’t go into government with the Greens? It seems to me to be coming down to who Peter’s dislikes the most, the Greens or John Key?

    Could we possibly have the following scenario:

    National and it’s gerrymander allies are the largest party, but cannot command a majority on supply, or form a coalition with NZ First.

    Labour the next party in size, cannot form a government which includes both NZ First and the Greens.

    Therefore

    Labour forms a minority government without a formal coalition deal with either the Greens or NZ First except on confidence and supply, and makes Winston Peters minister outside of cabinet of overseas trips.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 9:56 am

  12. I was, to my eternal regret, an enthusiastic activist for MMP prior to the ’96 election. What a farce MMP has peoduced now…. I (and probably thousands of people) never dreamed what an idiotic clusterfuck we helped to create.

    Comment by Dave Mann — February 8, 2014 @ 10:28 am

  13. To be fair, the MMP review commission suggested several fixes, none of which suited National’s gerrymandering agenda so where not accepted.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 10:35 am

  14. >National+Peters+ACT+United Future+Maori Party coalition won’t have enough seats in Parliament to form a government. The only viable coalition is Labour+Greens+Peters.

    I’m sorry but that math is totally broken. If Labour+Greens have less than 50%, then the rest have more than 50% between them, so they would have the numbers.

    >who Peter’s dislikes the most, the Greens or John Key?

    I think it would be Key. He can hold Key to ransom, whereas in a Lab/Green/NZF coalition, both he *and* the Greens can hold Labour to ransom. So the Greens could block him every bit as effectively as he could block them.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 8, 2014 @ 10:39 am

  15. >I was, to my eternal regret, an enthusiastic activist for MMP prior to the ’96 election. What a farce MMP has peoduced now…. I (and probably thousands of people) never dreamed what an idiotic clusterfuck we helped to create.

    Yes, it’s the crappiest system we’ve ever had, apart from FPP and rule-by-governor and tribalism.

    I actually voted against MMP originally, because I was an ACT voter, and thought markets should be king, and that FPP would do a better job of that. I changed my mind about MMP before I changed my mind about markets. I realized that neoliberalism is a juggernaut that no government anywhere could stop (and that it is not a good system), and if democracy has to be representative (I prefer the idea of Direct) then it should at least be numerically fair. And it is the minor tweaks to make it numerically unfair that I dislike about MMP. But be realistic – it’s way better than FPP.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 8, 2014 @ 10:50 am

  16. I am in favour of a Labour-Greens-NZ First coalition because NZ First will bring the party back more towards the centre left.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — February 8, 2014 @ 11:01 am

  17. Peters the former National minister, the former treasurer in a National government, who uses dog whistle politics and recently engaged in a bit of it at Waitangi will bring NZ back to the centre left? Conservative nationalism doesn’t mean progressive by any means…

    Comment by sheesh — February 8, 2014 @ 12:01 pm

  18. sheesh, I suspect Lang means NZF would bring them away from the far left. But who knows?

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — February 8, 2014 @ 1:22 pm

  19. Single vote MMP with no-coattailing would be the best solution. Democracy doesn’t imply enabling people to hedge their bets. If you don’t like your local candidate, then find another party (which would mean that parties might take more care in candidate selection).

    Comment by richdrich — February 8, 2014 @ 3:37 pm

  20. “…Single vote MMP…”

    I hate to be the pedant, but wouldn’t that turn it into pure PR?

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 3:49 pm

  21. Ah! My bad, I get you now. Interesting idea.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 8, 2014 @ 3:52 pm

  22. Are your charts going to be Greebour / National from now on, instead of your historically typical Labour / Green / National / etc?

    Comment by Rick Rowling — February 8, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

  23. Graeme Edgeler: You are assuming there is no overhang and 61 seats will give you a majority. Based on the way UF and Act are polling at the moment (0%), they could very well turn into overhang seats, not to mention the Maori Party.

    Comment by wtl — February 8, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

  24. “Single vote MMP”

    Has any nation used that party-vote-only approach so far?

    Comment by Sacha — February 8, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

  25. @Rich: Wouldn’t the best way to eliminate coattailing be to remove the threshhold altogether, so 0.8% of the vote would get one a single MP?

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 8, 2014 @ 10:49 pm

  26. Graeme Edgeler: You are assuming there is no overhang and 61 seats will give you a majority. Based on the way UF and Act are polling at the moment (0%), they could very well turn into overhang seats, not to mention the Maori Party.

    Given my numbers had 121 seats, it should be reasonably obvious that I am not assuming there is no overhang.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — February 9, 2014 @ 10:09 am

  27. Hang on, it just occurred to me that “Single vote MMP” is just the Supplementary Member system under another name?

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 9, 2014 @ 10:35 am

  28. @Sanctuary: I doubt it? I mean, “Single vote MMP” has no real meaning in and of itself but from context I think what’s being discussed is a system where all MPs are list MPs and there are no electorates.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 9, 2014 @ 11:14 am

  29. I think “single-vote MMP” is a version where the party vote is calculated by tallying up all the candidate votes nationwide, instead of having a separate box to tick. Nothing like SM or pure PR. Don’t really see how it would be an improvement over the status quo.

    Comment by simian — February 9, 2014 @ 11:59 am

  30. Well if you only get one vote for an electorate candidate (“…If you don’t like your local candidate,…”) and that also counts as the party vote, then the only way you could get proportionality is via a top up a la SM?

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 9, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

  31. @simian has it right. It’s been used in some German states. Apart from that, the system remains the same – a vote for an electorate candidate is taken as being a vote for their party. Same number of list MPs,allocated according to the paty vote (as measured by the vote for that party’s candidates).

    The advantage is that it removes the opportunity for tactical voting. If Epsom voters want to elect an ACT candidate, they can’t give their party vote to National. If Maori voters want a Maori Party candidate, their party vote goes the same way, which would reduce overhangs.

    Comment by richdrich — February 9, 2014 @ 1:00 pm

  32. Interesting idea, what kind of results does it deliver?

    I’m not sure I like the idea, though – if we are going to have electorates, it seems nice for people to be able to choose their electorate MP free of considerations for how that affects the national result.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 9, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

  33. Graeme Edgeler: Yes you are right, my bad. I guess a better point would have been that the scenario has the numbers so close that a change of just one seat (either due to % party votes or the number of overhang seats) would have a large effect on the possible governing arrangements. Which really isn’t saying much because its just stating the obvious.

    Comment by wtl — February 9, 2014 @ 2:28 pm

  34. “choose their electorate MP free of considerations for how that affects the national result”

    But the choice of electorate MP *will* affect the national result – not if one votes for larger party candidates, for which their national total is determined by the size of their party vote. However, those voting for a micro-party candidate (ACT or Dunne) at electorate level and then party voting for e.g. National double-dip: they get a National supporter as an electorate MP, but that MP doesn’t count against National’s total in determining the total number of MPs.

    All else being equal, if Dunne and Banks had run as National candidates last time, National would have two less list MPs. (This is separate from the threshold – neither ACT or UF got enough votes for a second MP) (and they also both got enough votes to avoid the overhang). With single voting, any attempt at seat-gifting would reduce the party vote of the larger party doing the gifting.

    Comment by richdrich — February 9, 2014 @ 4:53 pm

  35. Hey Sand don’t get too excited!

    Comment by bart — February 9, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

  36. @Rich: The electorate vote only affects the national result in a very small number of seats. Even now, with gerrymandering supposedly rife, we’re talking about a maximum of three seats. For the vast majority of NZers, it’s not the situation.

    And anyway, isn’t the fact that the electorate vote has undue influence on the national result something we’re positing as a bug, not a feature? If the problem with MMP is that it creates this weird situation in a small number of electorates, what’s the point of replacing it with a system that multiplies the problem to all electorates?

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 9, 2014 @ 11:41 pm

  37. it seems nice for people to be able to choose their electorate MP free of considerations for how that affects the national result

    This is one of the great things about MMP. I lived in Auckland Central in 2008, and under FPP I would have held my nose and voted for Judith Tizard. Under MMP, I could get rid of her without contributing to a nationwide National victory.

    Comment by helenalex — February 10, 2014 @ 8:54 am

  38. Sanctuary @ 11:

    “But isn’t the conumdrum always been that NZ First won’t go into government with the Greens? It seems to me to be coming down to who Peter’s dislikes the most, the Greens or John Key?”

    Peters also said he wasn’t interested in the “baubles of office” in 2005 before taking on the Foreign Minister job. But then again, I don’t recall the Greens ever explicitly and aggressively trying to end his parliamentary career either like Key did. He’s also been happy to hang out with Russell Norman during the last few years, so who knows?

    “Could we possibly have the following scenario:

    National and it’s gerrymander allies are the largest party, but cannot command a majority on supply, or form a coalition with NZ First.

    Labour the next party in size, cannot form a government which includes both NZ First and the Greens.

    Therefore

    Labour forms a minority government without a formal coalition deal with either the Greens or NZ First except on confidence and supply, and makes Winston Peters minister outside of cabinet of overseas trips.”

    I think Labour will go with the Greens as a coalition partner, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they bring NZ First along for the ride, giving Peters a ministerial position like in 2005. The Maori Party have also made some curious comments about working with Labour, and the question that I haven’t seen asked is the fairly obvious “how much will any explicit moves to woo NZ First hurt National, after Key’s rejection of the idea in previous elections hurt them, especially when he used words like ‘a matter of political principle?’” Looking at the aggregate poll further up the page, it looks like it’s having a fair bit of an effect already.

    Comment by Vagabundo — February 10, 2014 @ 10:25 am

  39. I wrote a dissertation on One-Vote MMP (ages ago), and one of my conclusions was that I don’t think it works to stop the sort of dodgy stuff being encouraged in Epsom.

    Logically, Epsom people voting for the ACT candidate but for National on the list are having more effect on the composition of parliament through their electorate vote than through their party vote (maybe only a little bit more, and this may not be obvious to them, but if ACT were polling high enough to get 3 or 4 list seats, they would be having way more effect through their electorate vote, and it would be obvious to them). Therefore their electorate vote is already cancelling out any effect of their party vote, so the logical thing if they had only one vote would be to use it to achieve what the are currently achieving through the electorate vote, and vote ACT to help National.

    I wondered if they would still decide not to do this, because it just felt wrong to cast their vote for a smaller party to help another, bigger party. However, studies from Sweden seem to suggest that Swedish voters aren’t put off by this idea, so I concluded a change to one-vote MMP wouldn’t make much difference. There are other possible rule changes that would help a lot more.

    Comment by kahikatea — February 10, 2014 @ 10:50 am

  40. The Royal Commission looked at one-vote MMP, but decided against.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — February 10, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

  41. >I’m not sure I like the idea, though

    I don’t like it. It’s a step backwards towards two-party only. The FPP electoral voting system would superimpose itself back onto MMP. Electorate candidates not in a main party would have considerably less chance because people might not be able to swallowing giving their party vote away. Independents would be severely disadvantaged.

    Basically, it’s taking away choice and signalling power from voters. There are better ways to deal with tactical voting. What I suggested already could happen. Both parties play, instead of just National. There is a showdown, and then they either agree informally not to do it any more, or they actually change the system. This is the constitutional accident waiting to happen.

    For system change, the two things that cause this whole mess, giving unfair advantage to the two GOPs are coat-tailing and the presence of the high threshold. They are a clear carrot-and-stick for the large parties to beat the small ones over the head with. Either one, or preferably both, should be removed from the system.

    I think we should lose FPP from the electorates too – it should be some form of transferable vote. This would serve to bring a great deal more proportionality into the rotten old piece of shit we inherited from FPP. Giving strong independent regional candidates a chance might inject some sense into the idea of having electorates at all.

    But I dream. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas – the Commission’s advice will be ignored for a second time.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 11, 2014 @ 11:20 am

  42. @ kahikatea – but if all John Banks’s Epsom voters voted ACT, that would reduce National’s party vote and possibly cost them a list MP (or maybe not, I don’t know enough about St Lague to predict).

    Comment by richdrich — February 11, 2014 @ 3:47 pm

  43. @Ben: I’m not sure that encouraging independent electorate MPs is a good thing in and of itself. And the problems with transferable votes are well known.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 11, 2014 @ 7:17 pm

  44. > I’m not sure that encouraging independent electorate MPs is a good thing in and of itself. And the problems with transferable votes are well known.

    I’m pretty sure that discouraging them is a bad thing. The party system isn’t in place because it was fundamentally good. It’s there because it’s too powerful to stop. MMP was designed to deal with it as an unfortunate reality, not make it stronger. There’s no reason to entrench that privilege.

    What problems with transferable votes? Every system has problems, which are you saying are the important ones (all hypothetical here, it ain’t gonna happen in NZ ever)?

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 11, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

  45. @Ben: I don’t think there is anything innately wrong with political parties.

    As for the problems with transferable votes, there are two.

    Firstly, the fact that the successful candidate may be a candidate who almost nobody voted for as their first choice. This may lead to the candidate being seen as illegitimate.

    Secondly, and more cogently given that we’re talking about this because people don’t like MMP’s propensity for coat-tailing, transferable votes leads to a situation where parties issue “guides” to their supporters telling them who to rank first, second, third etc. We’ve seen this in Australia. If you want an example of a potemkin party, the National Party (Oz edition) puts ACT to shame, and that’s a situation that is enabled by transferable votes.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 12, 2014 @ 12:53 am

  46. >I don’t think there is anything innately wrong with political parties.

    I don’t either, per se, but I’ve got a *big* problem with the idea of entrenching the power of only 2 of them, which is precisely what the FPP system does. It did it here, and it does it everywhere else that it’s used.

    >Firstly, the fact that the successful candidate may be a candidate who almost nobody voted for as their first choice. This may lead to the candidate being seen as illegitimate.

    Yup, however that can be preferable to a candidate with the most votes who is hated by the majority, which is the point of the system. And that is a *common* outcome in FPP.

    >transferable votes leads to a situation where parties issue “guides” to their supporters telling them who to rank first, second, third etc.

    So what? At least that’s honest. If you’re a tribal party clown, you get your preference-list and you use it. There’s no rule saying anyone has to follow that. Furthermore, Australia does not have PR for the lower house, so we’re talking about quite a different system. Their transferable vote system is preferable to FPP, but it’s still deeply unproportional. That is a consequence of an electorate based system – overall majorities do not count, so it’s tactics everywhere, gerrymandering electorates works and you get a far more strongly 2 party system. I don’t like they way they do it and I’m not suggesting that. But if we must have electorates (I’m still not convinced) then it works better for that than FPP, so we could adjust MMP to do it that way. Or even STV the electorates, if we’re still dreaming here.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 12, 2014 @ 1:36 am

  47. @Ben: If you don’t have a problem with political parties, why do you think promoting independent candidates is a good thing?

    As for the rest, what’s the difference between the preference guide, and Key telling National party supporters in Epsom to vote for ACT? There’s no rule saying anyone has to follow what he says, either. It feels like you’re switching the goalposts.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 12, 2014 @ 3:03 am

  48. >If you don’t have a problem with political parties, why do you think promoting independent candidates is a good thing?

    You’re putting words in my mouth. I just don’t like systems that tend to 2 party. Anything that makes a talented minor party or independent candidate have a more equal chance, a chance based on merit rather than allegiance, is an improvement.

    >As for the rest, what’s the difference between the preference guide, and Key telling National party supporters in Epsom to vote for ACT?

    Not much. A system change doesn’t instantly make politicians or voters act in good constitutional faith. I like IRV if we have an electorate based system slightly more because it is fairer to the minor parties. A strong Green candidate could actually win an electorate on second preferences anywhere that the voters are generally environmentally conscious, but divided on their red/blue feelings. This is a good compromise. Or a really strong independent candidate could do much the same.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 12, 2014 @ 10:06 am

  49. Well, as I say, this whole discussion originated with people trying to think of ways to stop Epsom-style gerrymanders, your suggestion of STV, while it might work on other criteria, doesn’t really help overcome this problem.

    For the record, I still think the simplest way to avoid this kind of thing is to reduce the threshhold to nothing, so that ACT would be able to get an MP into Parliament with 1% of the vote. That would utterly remove the incentive for big parties to do Epsom-type deals with smaller parties. Of course, it would also keep ACT in Parliament, so I can’t help but wonder if the real reason people are unhappy about the Epsom situation has less to do with a non-partisan, disinterested concern for the legitimacy of the electoral system, and more to do with a desire to keep ACT out of Parliament.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — February 12, 2014 @ 10:36 am

  50. If we imagine our democracy as a living, evolving organism then I think we spend far to much time forensically studying the components of the democratic beast and far to little pausing to check if the creature is still alive, barely moving or if we are merely picking at an increasingly rancid cadaver. For example, all this technical talk of different voting methods spectacularly fails to take any cogniscense whatsoever of plummeting participation in the political process and the dangerous hollowing out of civil society in favour of corporate and authoritarian governance models (just yesterday the government proposed corporatising governance of universities). And if we realise the beast is dead, how legitimate are the claims of a political corpse to rule over us?

    To my mind, how you elect people to parliament (as long as certain principles like universal suffrage, the secret ballot and corruption are addressed) is of relatively minor interest. A thriving, inclusive and participatory democracy using FPP will produce better and more representative governments than an anaemic, elitist and disinterested democracy using MMP will.

    A decadent democracy is still going to be decadent no matter how often it rearranges it’s mechanical operations. I think a far more fruitful discussion would be around how we raise participation in political activity and reinforce democratic values at all levels in our society. For example, is it democratic that an unlected reserve bank governor has such an important say in our economy? Shouldn’t the fact that the governing right wing only got around a third of the votes of all eligible voters be worthy of more urgent attention than a discussion of the party system? Shouldn’t the number of New Zealanders who seemingly favour quite violent authoritarian solutions to societal problems be something causing more alarm to our political class? And what are the implications to our democracy of the total collapse of standards and professionalism in news and current affairs in our main establishment media?

    Just saying.

    Comment by Sanctuary — February 12, 2014 @ 10:47 am

  51. >A thriving, inclusive and participatory democracy using FPP will produce better and more representative governments than an anaemic, elitist and disinterested democracy using MMP will.

    Agreed. But a inclusive and participatory democracy using MMP will produce better and more representative government still, so it’s not a totally pointless discussion. I think you do identify the more serious problem, but it’s a problem so serious that addressing it should hardly put other discussions entirely on hold. We don’t just put all our money into building one tunnel or railway or bridge at a time. We don’t stop fixing potholes because we’re making a city loop. Potholes can, at least, actually be fixed.

    >For example, is it democratic that an unlected reserve bank governor has such an important say in our economy?

    I don’t think so, but the decision to make that so was a democratic one.

    >Shouldn’t the fact that the governing right wing only got around a third of the votes of all eligible voters be worthy of more urgent attention than a discussion of the party system?

    There wouldn’t even be a governing right wing without a party system. So I think that the two discussion are complementary.

    >Shouldn’t the number of New Zealanders who seemingly favour quite violent authoritarian solutions to societal problems be something causing more alarm to our political class?

    In a democracy, you’re going to find quite a lot of the political class having those same attitudes, so it’s not a no-brainer that they shouldn’t be allowed to think such things, or that they should be actively trying to fix the *political* opinion of the populace. The very matter IS a political question.

    >And what are the implications to our democracy of the total collapse of standards and professionalism in news and current affairs in our main establishment media?

    Deep questions, all. You’ve got your own blog, presumably?

    Coming back to your first point, because there just isn’t room on this thread to do any justice to all of those points, and I’d want at least some assurance that you’d be discussing in good faith before spending more time on it, I do have this to say about the decline in participation: It has an air of inevitability. It’s happening all around the industrialized world. Without claiming any proof more than just an argument about it, I’d say that part of that participatory decline is inevitable when society grows extremely large, well organized and complicated. People actually *can’t* give a shit about everything. The natural trend of intellectual activity is increasing specialization. Even if there are still plenty of generalists out there, like you and me, even being a generalist eventually becomes a specialization. And most people just don’t have the time for it.

    So to me, time itself is the culprit. We are simply too busy, too industrious, to be able to discuss this stuff as a society. And the only solution I can see is to sacrifice that industriousness, to reduce it, if we are to participate en masse. People really do need more idle time for it. But more idle time is less productive time. It’s reducing work, it’s voluntary unemployment, it’s reduction of potential. It makes us less competitive against people who won’t take the time.

    I’m also only identifying a problem here, I don’t claim to have the solutions. Obviously part of that comes down to unfair distribution of the wealth. People work long hours because they can’t make ends meet. But I don’t think that’s the whole story at all, because people who can make ends meet are often even worse for this. And people who are the most idle are very often extremely unhappy – the unemployed and the idle rich share in having severe depression issues.

    Is it human nature that we need to work? If so, could it be changed? Should it?
    Is it the nature of social organization that participation will decline as society gets huge? Proportional participation – obviously the absolute numbers of people participating has *never* been so high as it is now.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — February 12, 2014 @ 2:30 pm

  52. NO thing wrong here

    Comment by moneymaker — February 27, 2014 @ 10:02 am

  53. no thing here like i see the policy is good

    Comment by moneymaker — February 27, 2014 @ 10:03 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 336 other followers

%d bloggers like this: