So why do Labour parties (in the UK and Australia) oppose fair votes?
Do they prefer an occasional chance at exclusive office when the pendulum swings their way to the ability to share power more often?
So the NEC has voted to allow Corbyn to stand in the leadership election. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the absence of another non-Blairite, he wins again.
I wonder what the Blairites will do then - a flounce would almost certainly be terminal, but they might do it anyway.
If you run any kind of writable website, jokers will post links on it to various unrelated places: either in a misguided attempt at SEO, to get people to genuinely come to their site or to try and install drive-by exploits.
Hence many moderation policies disapprove of links - I don't think it's any more sinister than that.
Bush and co in the US
Former US presidents are considered outside politics (they are mostly ineligible for further office) in a way that former British PMs are not.
Does it actually say for example that the war was illegal,
It wasn't "illegal" (as a whole) under British law simply because Britain (and most other states including NZ) don't subordinate their domestic laws to the UN charter. The only sanctions under that can be applied by the UN and (usually) to states (and require the authority of the Security Council, which would obviously not be granted when a member of that body is at fault).
That doesn't make it justifiable as good policy, but it isn't going to get Blair jailed unless he can be proved to have engaged in a narrowly illegal act, such as authorising kidnap or torture.
Forgive me if I already said this, but I think one reason for their flouting of regulation is this:
- in NZ, Uber is perfectly sustainable on a legal basis with a few tweaks (for instance, given the data they have, it would be perfectly possible to quote a firm price at booking time, as they know pretty much the time the ride's going to take, incidents en-route excepted).
- in many overseas cities, the taxi industry and local government have a co-dependent relationship, with taxi licenses changing hands for six-figure prices. The only way Uber can bust this is to drive conventional taxis out of business so that the taxi lobby doesn’t exist and local government’s revenue source is dead. They can then push for the adoption of a simpler regulatory system (ironically, one not unlike NZ).
Playing devils advocate, the only reasonable justifications NZTA might have could be:
- Uber are outside the jurisdiction (legally very dubious, the locus of the offence is fully inside NZ)
- it's considered impossible to enforce any judgement against Uber because they are physically outside the jurisdiction and the framework for international enforcement of regulatory matters is lacking
- - incitement and conspiracy don't apply to regulatory offences - would need a lawyer to answer that one..
I'm interested in Blair's motivation though; was it:
- a genuine belief that islamist terrorism was a serious threat to the integrity of British society and the only way to deal with that was to forcibly impose a friendly, liberal government in all muslim-majority states?
- belligerent liberalism: a belief that western states had the right and duty to impose 'good government' on 'lesser breeds without the law'?
- a belief that Britain's interests were inextricably entwined with the US and could only be served by following in lockstep with whatever the US decided?
- a desire for economic gain from imposing governments that would trade with the US/UK on favourable terms?
- or that he was just a CIA agent doing his job (or his wife was)?
And you're surprised that the thinking, progressive people that form the members and supporters of the UK Labour party don't want to elect another Blairite leader?