Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Sue,
i hope a vote of no confidence in anyone is an option in this leadership vote
You just answered your own question, I think. Because Cunliffe can be pretty sure he doesn't command enough confidence from caucus to continue as leader; and moreover, the election result may indicate significant erosion in his support amongst the wider membership, who basically elected him as leader last time. I agree, the timing is unfortunate, and as I've said before, it might be better for Labour instead to abandon the One Leader model ... but I can see why Cunliffe thinks it needs to be done now.
-
The situation before the most recent law change was that convicted criminals serving a prison sentence of more than three years at the time of an election could not vote. One argument for setting the limit there was, presumably, that voting should be limited to those who could reasonably expect to be part of wider NZ society within the next government term. Another argument was increased fairness: anyone sentenced to a prison sentence of that duration would miss at least one chance to vote.
A criminal who would be rejoining society within that period could vote.
This is the subset of convicted criminals whose right to vote was removed in the new law.
Fairness has also been reduced, and replaced by a level of arbitrariness, in that, if you’re serving a prison sentence of two years at the time of an election, you can’t vote, whereas if you serve the same sentence in full between elections, you don’t lose the right to vote at all. (N.B.: a sentence of home detention doesn’t remove the right to vote.)
Personally, I’m open to arguments that all convicted criminals should retain voting rights; I merely note that that was not the status quo.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Marc C,
Fiance Minister
someone showing a higher level of commitment than the Minister for Foreign Affairs? ... but sadly, a commitment to ideology rather than critical evaluation of evidence.
-
Hard News: The humanity, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
Regardless of the target: a better start would be
actual fact-based reporting and analysis, rather than simply
brandishing the tar & feathers, and so tarnishing their brand -
Hard News: The humanity, in reply to Euan Mason,
the first step is to find a leader who can connect with voters without leaving openings for right wing propagandists.
That's not the first step, it's the desired endpoint. Team-building and staff training exercises might be useful first steps.
-
Hard News: The humanity, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
If the media were stopping at “scrutiny and criticism”, I wouldn’t see a problem. But I don’t think that’s an accurate characterisation of Gower & co’s conduct.
And it would be nice to see "scrutiny and criticism" being applied more consistently to ... oooh, you know, the actions of and processes followed by that even larger power bloc within parliament.
-
Hard News: The humanity, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Would you still agree that when the media is being used to attack the opposition, democracy as a whole suffers?
-
Hard News: The humanity, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
In case you simply don’t see it, the two cases are not symmetrical.
The role of journalism should be to hold the powerful – i.e., the government of the day – to account. Not the powerless – among which number we should include Cunliffe at the moment. The problem is not that journalists "attacked" Key at one point in the election campaign: rather, the problem is that they largely failed to do their jobs in the preceding six years.And what exactly should the public call him to account for? That’s THREE baseless accusations (“tricky”, “tricky”, “rort”) you’ve managed to crowbar into one comment. You must be feeling so pleased with yourself.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to ,
That’s just not realistic,
That was kind of the point Jack was making – the various media recommendations are contradictory.
no alternative but to show some humility
to the public? yes, but also to their fellow workers in Opposition. As I’ve already said upthread, I think Labour have to learn to work visibly, consistently, and cheerfully with the Greens (and others). During the next three years, they need to work as a team, among themselves as well as with other Opposition parties. For at least some of that time, it might be a good idea for Labour to explore joint leadership among co-equals with different areas of specialisation.* Which would be one way to respond to the calls for leadership change, without giving in to the media demand for bloodletting. IF – and I wouldn’t say it’s proven at this point, and that in itself is probably a clue to the source of their electoral woes – they have people who can step up to that, who are adult enough to collaborate with others from a position of mutual respect and trust.
Much as I hate to admit it, though, the recent election result does seem to indicate that voters respond to a “strong leadership” message more than to any individual policy. So, unless Labour can get positive traction with a more collegial approach to doing policy (and, you know, DOING OPPOSITION, which should be absurdly easy given what they have to react against, but they failed miserably at it last term), it looks like, about a year out from the next election, they might still need to focus on one strong leader in order to be electable. But I really hope they try the collegial approach first, and moreover I hope they can succeed in it.
* By the way, following on from adopting a multiple leader model, wouldn’t it be awesome if the “Leaders’ Debate” media events became more like (verbal) tag-team wrestling?
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Farmer Green,
To their credit though
With banks, their business always, inevitably, is to their credit...