Just BTW, if you’re going to attempt to be pedantic about definitions, you should note the difference between “ingeniously” and “ingenuously”. Fascinating how one typewriter key makes the difference between a compliment and a slur.
Meanwhile, Scott Adams nails the appeal of Key:
Leadership is an illusion created by the abuse of underlings.
The more pain I force you to endure, the more of a leader I appear to be.
( Dilbert , 5 Oct 2014)
(Today we get gerrybrownleeing instead: making living conditions in an electorate so unbearable that opposition voters decamp to other regions.)
hard to see how [FPP] could be gamed
FPP was very easily gameable, on a grand scale, by gerrymandering: redrawing electorate boundaries to encompass regions in which you know your party has a narrow majority. Result: you win more than half the electorates, without needing half the total vote. (Meanwhile, opposing parties get their supporters ghettoised into a smaller number of very strongly held electorates.)
Thanks DeepRed, that’s the one. The Japan Times ran the same article pretty much word for word.
And it’s just made the news here in Japan (of all places!) that New Zealand is about to face trade sanctions over the lack of measures to protect Maui’s Dolphin and its habitat.
I ask all members to comply with these expectations
Alas, certain of those in caucus have already been conducting themselves as … bigger members than that.
Effectively, a big swinging bunch of John Keys. And the media so enjoys the resulting rattling noise.
i hope a vote of no confidence in anyone is an option in this leadership vote
You just answered your own question, I think. Because Cunliffe can be pretty sure he doesn't command enough confidence from caucus to continue as leader; and moreover, the election result may indicate significant erosion in his support amongst the wider membership, who basically elected him as leader last time. I agree, the timing is unfortunate, and as I've said before, it might be better for Labour instead to abandon the One Leader model ... but I can see why Cunliffe thinks it needs to be done now.
The situation before the most recent law change was that convicted criminals serving a prison sentence of more than three years at the time of an election could not vote. One argument for setting the limit there was, presumably, that voting should be limited to those who could reasonably expect to be part of wider NZ society within the next government term. Another argument was increased fairness: anyone sentenced to a prison sentence of that duration would miss at least one chance to vote.
A criminal who would be rejoining society within that period could vote.
This is the subset of convicted criminals whose right to vote was removed in the new law.
Fairness has also been reduced, and replaced by a level of arbitrariness, in that, if you’re serving a prison sentence of two years at the time of an election, you can’t vote, whereas if you serve the same sentence in full between elections, you don’t lose the right to vote at all. (N.B.: a sentence of home detention doesn’t remove the right to vote.)
Personally, I’m open to arguments that all convicted criminals should retain voting rights; I merely note that that was not the status quo.
someone showing a higher level of commitment than the Minister for Foreign Affairs? ... but sadly, a commitment to ideology rather than critical evaluation of evidence.