That's pretty big news. Trouble is, neither David Cunliffe or Russel Norman actually say that -- or anything of the kind -- in the report.
Which is pretty sensible, as giving a straight answer either way would render their actions open to judicial review for bias or pre-determination.
But mostly: I don't think the Electoral Commission would have bothered here had not Bomber's dumb free wi-fi plan come to light. He's quite the political strategist.
I guess this is what not paying him $8,000 a month gets you.
legitimate anonymous donations
You lost me about there. These people gave sufficiently large donations that Parliament has legislated that they should be disclosed. They got around that by manipulating their affairs. They deliberately laundered their donations to evade the law. And that is the very opposite of "good faith".
TV3 just mentioned that one of the alleged rapists is the son of a police officer. And suddenly, everything becomes clear...
Doesn't the alleged serial gang-rape of minors warrant that kind of investigation?
It certainly permits it; surveillance warrants are available for any crime with a penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and there's no limit on the use of production orders. Hell, they used the latter to seize Bradley Ambrose's privileged emails and texts on the bullshit teapot tapes case; it would be nice if they used it to investigate real crime.
I genuinely don’t understand why no charges can be laid unless a victim makes a complaint.
Well, it makes it very difficult to bring a successful prosecution in a rape case (and its difficult enough when the victim is willing to testify, because rapists love to put their victims on trial). But given what's been said publicly, they should be able to start with conspiracy to commit rape (7 year sentence) and move on from there.
Councils determine their own boundaries, subject to the oversight of the Local Government Commission. In Auckland's case, I think the LGC did it. They're the same people BTW who imposed at-large voting on Palmerston North despite its council voting against it (after hearing public submissions, whcih were unfavourable).
The Tory rebellion (over tax and Ireland) lasted from 1909 to 1914, and was only truncated by the King threatening to create Liberal peers and (in the case of Ulster, where the revolt took military form) by the outbreak of WW1. It's a little known piece of history, largely because it conflicts so starkly with the narrative of democratic evolution.
Except we now look at it as part of that democratic evolution, because it gave the UK the Parliament Act and the principle that the Commons was supreme. And now that that crisis has happened, the UK won't face a similar one again because they actually solved it.
The one we might want to look at is the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, which saw the upper house in a bicameral system refuse to pass appropriation bills.
Its the closest analogy. Though again: infrequent, a bug, not a feature.
I'm not convinced about the "cultural" part. There have been numerous constitutional crises in Westminster model states, from the Tory rebellion over Lloyd George's budgets through to whatever happened in Canada a couple of years ago.
Yes. But they're a bug, not a feature (meaning they are infrequent, and provoking one is not viewed by the actors as a means of leverage on the government). Though Canada I'd also say is being infected by US political norms, weakening the Westminster ones.
Should the government somehow lose its majority, I'd be disappointed if Labour and the Greens weren't straight in there with a motion of no confidence at the first opportunity. That is their job.
Absolutely. But that's the normal operation of the system, not a constitutional crisis.
It's simply that the US constitution was designed for eighteenth century circumstances and never really reviewed.
That is a big part of the problem. But I think the cultural norms around government and politics are an even bigger part. e.g. I can't think of another mature democracy where gerrymandering or disenfranchisement are seen as legitimate political tactics.
Would there be any funding to hold the mid-term elections? I/S over at NoRightTurn seems to think that the only thing the US would be able to spend money on after midnight would be waging war.
There will be other standing authorisations to; that was more a snark at the priorities of US legislators: you can starve the poor and the old, you can shutdown public health, but you can't possibly stop bombing people and waving that giant dick around.