So why a Bipartisan Approach to Disaster Recovery Does Not really Work

Christchurch, New Zealand 2016. I still are in a city where facts so often do not make it through the gridlocked gauntlet of posting. I are in a town where so much of what should be being discussed is not being discussed. I are in a city where the political figures who are supposed to be speaking for the people seem to be to obtain lost their voices. I stay in a city where lots of people are still suffering while most settle-back and watch. We still feel anger, letdown and frustration that after five years the us government is noiseless, the media is quiet, the regulators are quiet and in the key so is the afflicted populace.

I watch and wait around as 'Christchurch' is one of the on-going saga about an unparalleled catastrophe, with an damaged population largely left to wallow in its own misery. After years of being involved in Christchurch what emerges is a story of a very sorry state of affairs, a story of inefficiencies, dishonesty, professional vested hobbies, cynical corporate greed and government complicity and self-service.

On top of that we have an insurance industry left to their own devices, an industry in dire need of reform. The industry has done and continues to do all it can to maximise its income by delaying settlement of claims, creating policyholder mistreatment in the process. When insurance companies are in the business of making money, they can be considered 'just normal businesses'.

They will have special fiduciary obligations requiring them to protect buyers both in convention and case law.

Very important amidst those duties are the duties to take action fairly and in good faith. The regulators in New Zealand have chosen to be blind to the events taking place here. And merely because the government entered into a contract as part of its discussions with insurers it should not be the human population of Canterbury that pays off the price for it is own failures.

There are those who would have us believe political effort is a necessary groundwork to relieve symptoms of a natural disaster, but the experience over the last five and a half years has shown that a 'bipartisan' way does not work!

Work leader, Mr Shearer agreed that Labour would inches... do everything in our power to bring the issues to the attention of Parliament. But My spouse and i do believe we have to look at a way we may have a bipartisan approach on this.

We all do desire a government/opposition combined approach. " And "as a result of that, I think we do need to be seated down with the Govt and looking at a bipartisan approach to the rebuild in Christchurch and its recovery. " ( See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779345 ).

What is a Bipartisan procedure? Wikipedia defines it as "a political situation, usually in the context of the two party system, by which opposing political parties find common ground through agreement, in theory. " And so in the context of the Christchurch earthquakes this would signify Labour would essentially leave National to its making decisions process in relation to issues appertaining to the recent earthquakes and the Christchurch 'recovery'.

On the face of it, it is not hard to comprehend the appeal of bipartisanship. This kind of might sound very older and enlightened with a suggestion of the unified pursuit of quick and beneficial solutions to a set of difficult circumstances. It seems an evident choice in the circumstance of external threat, such as war, yet there is little evidence that solutions to big interior danger is to be found through bipartisanship, in addition to lots of examples throughout background that would suggest that they can be not. When it comes to 'crisis' situations, this is particularly so.

Democracy actually will depend on partisanship - strong, critical care that opens public debate- forcing the parties to describe their ideas which in turn clarifies options for voters. Partisan triggers are often bold ideas even though these ideas can be divisive, they may offer citizens a honestly new path forward.

Simply by contrast, bipartisanship is able to 'cloak corruption, obscure chasms between politicians and the folks they serve', agree to spend single individuals with ludicrous powers, or simply suggest that the leadership of both parties has changed into a shut club, (often with an agenda). In principle and in practice, a serious partisan political structure is fundamental to a healthy democracy and partisan ideas are crucial for freedom. Bipartisanship, by contrast, has enabled some of the most shameful episodes in history such as American slavery, the Iraq battle, and others. I notice with interest that in the USA there's also a bipartisan approach to 'climate change'.

Yet is it not the case that the good political leader is not the individual who goes up above partisan concerns, however the person who is able to plainly articulate and defend the interests of one party? Able to submit another view point, propose other solutions - widen the choice variety for the damaged populace? People surviving in a democracy should get the us government they choose based on clear choices. Clear choices produce better results. Decisions by the political parties to 'demote' political representatives who raise questions of 'punishment because of not dragging the bipartisan line' are worrying.