We had someone come and get all the Year 13s who were 18 or who would be 18 by the election to fill in a form.
I don't mean people who are going to be able to vote at the election that is coming up in the next few months, once every three years.
I mean every year sign up everyone while most of them are still in school, even if they election is two years away.
I do wonder if we could enroll young people better if you could sign them up once they turned 17, so you could enroll people as part of year 13 at high school - say July or August.
And then put them on a holding roll until they turned 18. Even if they moved in between you're likely to have their parents address for many of them.
It does seem strange that so much work goes into getting people onto the roll, when some months or a year earlier we had them all sitting in a room twiddling their thumbs, looking forward to the day when they could buy alcohol legally (and vote).
The quiz master has limited space in his scoring spreadsheet for long names, so he shortened it to "Cameron Slater is Shit" which we were happy with.
I think if KDC is going to throw meat around at political rallies, he’s got to expect he’ll attract media attention. If he does want the discussion about policy, best not talk about hacking credit rating systems. That said, I still think Corkery’s response was reasonable.
The video showed her standing behind the reporters when they were beginning their reports to camera. She started mouthing off behind them to someone else, and then to the world at general. So of course they kept on recording and she kept on going.
I think she's a terrible choice for their press secretary for any of IMP. They're going to have some wacky moments with the characters that they've got there and the background of the parties and their union. They need a media person who can manage that and put out fires rather than start them.
Still she gave us a great name for our pub quiz team on Monday night: Puffed-up Glove Puppets of Cameron Slater, which won us a jug of beer.
After my daughter was born and her mother and I had separated, she moved from being atheist to Catholic which has been very difficult for me. My daughter has come home to me religious, and as part of the negotiations through the family court I gave in on her choice of school and she went to a Catholic school, in return for me having her at my house more. Luckily recently I've been able to move her to a secular school.
Drives me mad that it's legal for schools to bring in this nonsense, I remember that it happened at my primary school under the Muldoon government, and one kid from my class used to go to the library.
But that's not really relevant to any media in NZ other than Radio NZ or TVNZ, who are owned by the government. If the Herald sells heaps of newspapers from splashing Len Brown's and bad journalism about jobs being given to people at art galleries, that's just going to encourage them...
At the time I felt blase about the changes to the Electoral Act. With this ruling (and the Key parody song) as examples (and no, not just because they are coming from the side of the fence I’m on) it’s apparent I was wrong.
It’s dodgy. It does appear to infringe basic freedom of speech and expression in ways that go well beyond what I thought was the intention.
Too late now, but it definitely needs to be changed.
The Key parody song is not banned under the Electoral Act. It's banned under the Broadcast Act.
Sorry, Russell, but that’s bullshit. They choose to and I thought grown-ups were expected to be honest about, and accountable for, their actions in this sad and sorry world. At least, that sounds an awful lot like what political journalists are happy to demand from everyone else on a daily basis.
I'm not sure how that's going to work in practice.
If one reporter plays clean, stays out of people's personal lives etc, what's their editor going to do when every other media outlet is reporting it with abandon and getting all the sales and page views?
We can expect better from the media, but also from the people that they're selling to as well by rewarded quality decent journalism with our money and eyes.
You can see a rather hard road for National to walk over the next five weeks - several small dumps to back up Hager's book and possibly add a little more to it that he didn't cover coming from whaledump, just to keep the news on it coming back again and again - each time a new round of news stories and further interviews and further commentators pulling it apart.
That's a painful environment to campaign in.
Or you can choose not to vote.
This in itself is exercising your democratic right.
Better to think about it another way. If you don't vote, then everyone who does vote makes up parliament for you. So effectively your vote will be split 40-something % National, 30ish% Labour, 12ish%Greens, etc.
Whereas if you do vote, 100% of your vote will go for the one you think is best.
I get how people don't vote if they think all parties are the same and it doesn't matter who you vote for, I don't get how people who clearly think that some parties are worse than the other fail to show up at the ballot box.
My major concern with Labour is about their social security (“welfare”) policy, which is all about nice slogans about wanting to get rid of child poverty and narrowing the income gaps. They seem to be more concerned with middle class welfare, as that is where the votes are.
I agree. The 5th Labour government didn't attack the Richardson benefit cuts, I doubt the 6th Labour government will do much to improve the lot of beneficiaries.
I was heartened to see Greens get aggressive on child poverty over the weekend on the news. I haven't looked at the details yet, but it seemed to be a substantial commitment, and they were including beneficiaries in the pool.
It looks like a punitive approach. Have a look at the health policy. See anything even acknowledging that alcohol consumption has a correlation with domestic violence. Do you see anything in the law and order policy you quoted from, that looks at, OGM I am about to sound like a bull buggering bastard, Women who abuse children, and the fate of those children? No – Because it’s not trendy to look the the compleat picture, better to look the other way.
I haven't done any work in this area for 20 years, and even that was brief, but the connection of alcohol to violence was something that the police were very interested in pushing. Womens Refuge were (in my view) well ahead of them - they viewed alcohol as removing inhibitions in many cases, but that the violence was already there in the person.
I wouldn't regard any party policy that headlined alcohol as the primary thing to solve in relation to violence as being in the 21st century.
Actually Labour….not good enough for me.
You are very well aware of what that piece of legislation is called…
Your concern isn't with the substance of the policy, but that in writing it they haven't named the legislation that will be amended when they implement the policy?