Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It occurs to me that one thing Labour desperately need to do in the next three years is to visibly, cheerfully, and consistently cooperate with the Greens -- to show that together they form a viable Opposition, and prove that one day they could form a viable government.
Which may be difficult given the incumbents Labour will be lumbered with.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
That’s the figure I saw too – but note that that average residence time includes rentals, which almost certainly change somewhat more frequently than self-owned homes.
-
whenever he’s genuinely challenged he falls to bits and starts lashing out in random directions with immature insults instead of actually addressing points.
Scarily, that may well be a selling point for some of his supporters.
Were the following governments ineffectual
This doesn’t negate the point that personality shouldn’t be allowed to trump policy. Did any of these examples rely solely on personality? Whether or not you agree with their policies, they also had clear goals for their vision of society, established over a long political career -- none of them were parachuted into politics through backroom deals to be a figurehead. (Another argument against the primacy of personality cults is that several of these examples were arguably hampered by their personality. I would say Kennedy, Lange, Obama, Clark all underachieved relative to their -- lofty -- goals.)
-
You can go back and edit your posts on this site (within a 15-minute window), rather than multiplying them.
As you say -- do your homework... -
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to mark taslov,
“Let them eat steak”, eh?
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to giovanni tiso,
+1. I for one am getting tired of playing Troll Bingo.
[Sigh: see below. More gratuitous, irrelevant ad hominems. Grow up already, dude.] -
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
their current right to vote in NZ elections only exists because of where we happened to draw the voting line in the past
And your right to vote only exists because of where we (re)drew the line in 1893. Even agreeing that voting rights aren’t fundamentally inalienable, that doesn’t make it OK to remove them arbitrarily.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Angela Hart,
people on home detention, can they vote?
Yes.
the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 disqualified people sentenced to any term of imprisonment after the Act’s commencement from enrolling or voting. Prisoners on remand were still entitled to vote, as were those sentenced to home detention.
(Source: NZCCL)
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to ,
But that was from the top of the tin, hence not bottom-feeding.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to izogi,
requiring people to demonstrate that they actually have a direct interest in NZ before being allowed to vote
I really strongly disagree with any such plan: I feel that the fewer barriers there are to voting, the better. If extra requirements are brought in, there’s too much scope for voter apathy, and for arbitrary exclusion of eligible voters (looking at the US as a case in point).
I'm sure I'd pass any "direct interest" test ( I've made sure I've kept up the visiting requirement) but I don't want my eligibility as a voter to be up to anyone else's judgement.