Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I take it nobody believes Mr Hagar's claim that the material was leaked to him by 'principled conservatives' within the National Party?
"Principled conservatives"? I don't think they exist.
-
And on a less serious note:
I've got a theory
that it's an MP
a rival MP
No, something isn't right thereI've got a theory
It was a hacker
Stole all the emails
Golly what a nightmareI've got a theory we should work this out...
-
So, whodunit?
Cui bono?
-
Rich: I agree that the 1689 BORA probably puts it beyond reach. But that's not what makes the difference between us and the US. That's down to constitutional rather than legislative supremacy; legislation must conform to the strict rules of the constitution (and most importantly, a little extra bit called, funnily enough, "the Bill of Rights") or else be invalid.
Wheras here, parliament can do what it wants, how it wants, and no-one can stop them. The limit of inquiry is whether parliament actually did it or not.
-
Lyndon: yes, the A-G must inform Parliament of inconsistencies. But you and I both know that lawyers can differ in their opinions, especially when they're paid by different people. I'm concerned about the BORA advice Crown Law issued on the EFA (it glossed to lightly over some things), but I don't think it got the fundamental balancing wrong (remember: the right to participate in free and fair elections which are not bought by the rich is also protected by the BORA), and I don't think it was so wholly dishonest as to mean that the A-G didn't do their job properly. And I'd be quite surprised if a court found otherwise.
-
He seems to have a case - that the crown law advice was wrong and Cullen should have told Parliament the Bill conflicts with the bill of rights - hence presumably that the act should be thrown out.
You presume incorrectly. It's just about the embarassment factor. This isn't America, and our courts don't get to throw laws out.
(Personally, I favour a justicible BORA. But that isn't the law yet)
-
Turkeys don't vote for Chirstmas, but they don't run the farm either.
No, they don't. But you yourself admit that they get to vote for the people who do, and that means they're entitled to have a view about how the farm ought to be run and vote accordingly.
This isn't an issue of public service professionalism. Public servants quite properly keep their views on who ought to be the government to themselves, and do not let them affect their work. But they are entitled to hold those views, and to vote for them at the ballot box.
-
AS: Professionalism in doing your job does not rule out self-interest at the ballot box.
-
Craig: It's not a matter of public servants being unable to serve a National government - these people are professionals. It's a matter of National's policies putting their jobs and livelihoods at risk. In other words, turkeys not voting for christmas.
I didn't think that would be so difficult to understand.
-
Not forever, but certainly until after the Budget so we're not seeing National making big promises it can't pay for.
Which really suggests that Labour should be making sure they can't pay for anything without having to borrow, or cut social spending and so take money directly out of people's pockets. Think long-term, and pre-commit that spending now!
It's a winning strategy either way: if Labour wins, they get to implement the policies they've committed to, which shouldn't annoy them. And if they lose, they leave a poison pill, which either binds National to a more left-wing agenda than they had planned, or forces them to betray the electorate.