I get that IM and Greens voters have ideas about what Labour should be.
And there's plenty of places where only Labour people can express their opinions and vote etc on the party and the leader, and this isn't that space.
A lot of this would go away if agencies published everything unless there was a good reason not to.
I was thinking this same thing as I watched the show last night. If the default was "we publish data", and then you provided reasons not to, then many OIA requests would become irrelevant - you'd simply direct them to the place that all the data got dumped.
It is worth taking stock of just where the battle is actually at. People of the Left have actually pretty much dominated the direction of social policy. But they’ve lost all control over the direction of economics. It’s been a great win for the Right to de-politicise economics, conveying the impression that it’s a boring science well in hand. Neoliberalism is, bizarrely, a compromise position.
Bill Clinton and Obama won two terms, Tony Blair and Helen Clark won three.
I'm not sure if Tony Blair is any model I want to see the left use. "War criminal" gets thrown around a fair bit in relation to his name these days in the UK.
Shame we cant say the same thing to TeamKey. “Just a regular meeting"… my arse. As Phil Goff puts it, “Political spin”. More lies from the Emperor.
I might have found myself yelling at him on the TV last night.
Without referring back to the letter of the law, who defines what a terrorist organisation is?
It would seem quite relevant to refer to the letter of the law in a discussion about terrorist laws.
I guess I can’t tell the difference cognitively. Walks like a Nat, quacks like one.
The hair is very right wing as well.
Yes, your argument out of context looked to me like Pascal’s Wager, but in context it makes sense. The missing bit was “And we also have good reasons in this case to think that I am right”.
Exactly my point. It always comes back to "how likely do we think that police are corrupt". Pascal's wager analysis doesn't really provide any useful answers as that basic point would be in dispute.
This search will probably be found to be illegal, in the mean time it is clearly unjust and damaging to journalism and free democracy.
It's a warrant signed by a judge in pursuit of evidence to identify a known criminal. Unless he's forgotten to date it, the legality of the warrant will be fine.
My understanding has always been that Police don’t get to keep revenue from speed cameras and that it all goes into the government’s consolidated fund. That’s also what Police claim, but I can’t find the legislative reference (if any) right now.
Police don't keep revenue gathered from speeding tickets, it all goes to the consolidated fund. Increased enforcement of speeding and other traffic works just costs them money and takes resources away from other 'real' crimes.
Despite this police have massively increased their commitment to attacking speed over the past couple of decades. They know that speed contributes to a significant number of crashes, injuries and deaths.
But what you seem to be missing is the consequences, if you are right then no harm done to our freedoms, if I am right then our freedom is under serious threat.
I could construct this same 2x2 box for "aliens are invading earth!", and come up with the same answers, so by that logic we should be trying to prevent aliens invading the earth.
If you don't think Bart being right is at all likely, it doesn't make sense to do anything, so again it really comes down to how much you think the police are likely to be corrupt.
Please someone make the point that sending troops endangers New Zealanders traveling overseas, it effectively devalues our passports and the security they provide.
I can't find that relevant. I'd struggle to find a war that I'd accept as a 'good one'. But if I did (I do support some peace-keeping, and can see a peace-keeping angle in this one) devaluing our passport is the least of our concerns. Sending soldiers overseas to fight wars should be good reason in itself or we shouldn't do it. Negatives like our passport, or positives like trade treaties, access to oil etc shouldn't have any part of it.