Some people seem to object very strongly to to the one-more-playe- in-the-circle thing, but it actually incentivises the taking of wickets as the best way to keep the runs down, which seems like a good thing.
Yes, and McCullum seems to understand the new rules very well. We may not win the World Cup, as strategy is only one factor and won't guarantee a victory, but McCullum has been the best captain of the tournament. And yes the new rules are a good thing; after all, how entertaining has this World Cup been?
I could understand the part when the referees where checking to see if the ball had hit the camera wire. Is it not actualy a catch, if the ball touches an obstacle, without exception? what if the ball hits the Tellevision drone?
It did strike me as strange in that if the ball had clipped the wire it would only have been a more difficult catch to take. But I can see a rationale for for ruling it a "dead ball", as Steve H indicated would likely be the case.
Can’t we just be pragmatic about this too?
That’s precisely what I was trying to do.
No, I meant about some prisoners not being able to vote. Your challenge to me was “where do we draw the line?”
Well, why not at a certain length of sentence, or certain types of convictions , or some combination of both?
It’s arbitrary, yes, but it has a rationale, and that rationale is pragmatism…
Like what? Where do we draw the line?
Where do we draw the line in terms of voting age? Can't we just be pragmatic about this too?
Chris, about go to bed (i.e. fall asleep at keyboard), but short answer for now - do you think Anders Breivik should be able to vote?
"Why 16, and why only prisoners rather than all disqualified persons?”
The idea of lowering the voting age to 16 was in the news recentishly, and then there’s the Scotland referendum on independence, in which 16-year-olds could vote.
I think we should lower the voting age – as I said above, this is their society too. And many 16 and 17 year olds are as capable of making informed decisions as many people older than that, and 16 seems like a reasonable goal.
However, if you think that the voting age should be lowered, you need to pick an age that has a hope of getting wide acceptance. So 16 seems pragmatic – let’s try for 16 for now.
As to the second part of your question: again, prisoner voting rights (or lack of) have been in the news recently; I’m lazy.
So who are the people currently not allowed to vote that you think should be able to?
“Well that, except for the (or most) bit, I certainly agree with.”
I’m ambivalent about the most serious of criminal offenders being able to vote.
I absolutely think most people in prison should be able to vote because they’re part of our society and will be affected by the policies (and will have been affected by the policies) of the people we as a society elect to govern. Essentially, it’s their society too.
However, I’m not completely against the idea that a person could commit violations against other members of our society that are so bad that we not only remove them from the general public for most/all of their remaining life but we also say it would be perverse for that person to be able to vote while their victims cannot.
People hate jury duty – compelling people to vote will only make them feel about it like they do about jury duty.
This is not a good comparison. Ben Wilson addressed this on page 2.
I don’t have much further to add to what’s been covered by Alex MacKenzie’s blogpost and things covered by Haywood, Wilson and Moz and others since. I guess we should all stop referring to it as compulsory voting, since it is not that. ‘Compulsory participation’ maybe?
Digressing a bit: I also think that the voting age should be lowered to 16, and that all (or most) prisoners should be able to vote.
“The absurdity of it is that the Greens are barely more left than Labour.”
I would say they were to the right of Labour, in a traditional sense, because the power behind the Greens are the children of the comfortable middle classes that have the time to care about the subjective, whereas traditional Labour supporters are the struggling poor and the exploited workers. Its a Class thing.
Yeah that could be fair, in the sense that you mean. I was thinking of it more in terms of a lining each party’s policies up against each other kind of way – tick box politics if you will.
(Not sure what you mean by “have the time to care about the subjective”.)
“Dad just died!”
“Oh dear, do you you need me to contact a funeral director?”
“No, a real estate agent, we only have ninety days to sell the house!”
Ok, I know that it won’t really be like that, as it would have to date from probate being granted at the earliest. And, unless the timeframe is really generous like 12-18 months, it makes whether or not you pay CGT at the whim of the property market in your time and location. Doer-uppers in Lumsden are probably slow to sell.
As I understand it it is two years in Australia. That would be fine. As I said, Cunliffe’s comment about 90 days, or one month or whatever, was poor. He, they, really needed a more detailed understanding of their own tax policy given that it was a *new tax policy* and a key difference between National and Labour and bound to come under scrutiny. It’s not like they don’t have a lot of models around the world they can look to, and it’s not like they weren’t already planning a CGT in their previous campaign.
Building the case for “why I very strongly considered voting for Labour, but then didn’t” is fairly easy. There’s the problem, I guess.